Talk:Passenger pigeon/Archive 1

Two billion birds in a flock?

Does anyone else think the two billion birds in a single flock figure is a bit unrealistic? One of the quoted sources doesn't mention a figure anywhere near this, and the other source is broken. Searching Google, it seems this number is often quoted, but appears to be based on a single estimation by Alexander Wilson- who knows how accurate this estimation was? Can the sentence at least be changed to reflect that it was only an estimation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwich2 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Put in lots of sources. All links are fixed. That's what the WP:RSs say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Quarter Million In Single Day?

Do we have any citations for the line about the fact that the last 250,000 pidgeons were killed in a single day? I just don't see how its possible to kill ALL birds in a flock in one day.68.124.183.219 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, the story about the boy who shot the last passenger pigeon seems a myth to me. -- SG

Excommunicated? Really?

It is impossible to excommunicate a passenger pigeon, regardless of the source. Excommunication is a canonical penalty leveled at Catholics. By definition, a pigeon is not Catholic.

It is possible that the bishop did something, but he could not possibly have excommunicated them. Simplex (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone know (and care to infrom us) why exactly it is called the Passenger Pigeon? -- Steve

As migratory birds of passage. Wetman 18:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aren't migratory and passage redundant together? Are other pigeons migratory? Also, not all migratory birds are called "Passenger". Why then the Passenger Pigeon? Hackwrench 04:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I had heard that they mated in flight, hence the male was a "passenger". Is this true ? StuRat 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Birds are technically unable to mate and at the same time keep their balance in flight (because they have to twist their tails to one side. Except the hihi which likes it the missionary way, but they still do that on the ground, which is a major drawback if cats are around). Dysmorodrepanis 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This article states that in modern French the bird is named as pigeon voyageur, which is not true. It is known as tourte or tourte voyageuse, unless you consider only the parisian variety of French to be modern French. A traditional meal in Québec even still is called tourtière although there is no tourte in it anymore. 67.70.26.25 (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Deforestation Led To Great Numbers?

I read (somewhere) that the passenger pigeons only grew to such enormous numbers after white men came to North America and began cutting down the forests (something about better breeding grounds.) I don't know the details, does anyone? Zoe

It was in the few scattered remains of the forests that the very last flocks were exterminated. Ecologically, the replacement of forest by agriculture is loosely akin to extending prairie at the expense of forest. Wetman 18:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have not heard that before, but I have never looked into the passenger pigeon in any detail. On the face of things, though, the suggestion has plausibility, at least if one reasons by analogy with some Australia birds (with which I am more familiar) that have become very much more numerous since European settlement: the galah, the budgie, several other parrot-family birds, the silver gull, and the magpie are examples. I think some of the inland pigeons are too, but I'd have to check that. Budgies form huge flocks - though doubtless much smaller than those of the passenger pigeon. The causes of the Oz increases are (a) increase in grass & croplands instead of forest, (b) availability of permanent water in the red centre, (c) human interference with predator species such as the peregrine falcon. Still, broadly speaking, the increases in the Australian species I've mentioned are a matter of degree: they were all very common birds before the Europeans arrived, and the main effect seems to have been an increase in their range, rather than of their density within an existing range. Tannin

Re: Zoe -The Passenger Pigeon declined rapidly when European settlers cut down the majestic old-growth stands of oak trees that covered much of the eastern U.S.: it did not grow to enormous numbers when they were cut, it precipitated their decline. Acorns provided an important staple of the Passenger Pigeon's diet, and the oak trees gave them nesting places for their colonies. The loss of acorns as forage food also drove their extinction, not just hunting for food. Any Passenger Pigeon article is incomplete without detailing thier relationship with American oak forests. --208.31.88.136 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zoe - In Chapter 10 of Charles C. Mann's 1491, he puts forward arguments that the Passenger Pigeon was not so common in Pre-Columbian times. The reasoning seems to be that when the Indian population plummetted in the wake of imported diseases, the pigeons had less competition for their food and underwent a population boom. Mann also argues that there would have been an increase in forest/wilderness from the 16th to early 19th centuries due to Indian population decline. Large scale European expansion into the interior only really occurred after this period and coincided with Passenger Pigeon decline. Rwestera 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there some good reason why passenger pigeon is capitalized here? Vague Rant 07:34, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, bird species are always capitalised on Wikipedia, with a lower case redirect. This a long standing convention and is in line with much current practice, especially, but not exclusively, outside N America. There are probably about 2000 bird species' articles on Wikipedia, all are capitalised. jimfbleak 14:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clone the poor thing already!

Couldn't someone take a feather from the stuffed bird, extract the DNA, and clone it? Wouldn't that be monumental? Wadsworth 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Feathers are like hair, composed of dead cells. In spite of fictional treatments, material from hair or feathers can't be cloned due to the actual nature of cloning. More likely if some bones that still have marrow could be found, or if the specimens still have muscle material. Realize though that cloning technology still hasn't reached the point of resurecting a whole bird or mammal from such specialized DNA. CFLeon 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Shoot! I wish they could...:( --Mitternacht90 16:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not the least problem is how to get any cloned DNA inside an egg... Dysmorodrepanis 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In spite of what you see in Jurasic Park or other shows, cloning doesn't work that way. It's not a matter of injecting any old DNA from the critter into a chicken egg. You have to extract an unfertilized egg CELL from a related species, nuke the cell's nucleus to kill the donor's DNA, then do the same to the sperm cell. Then fertilize the egg, and let it divide and incubate. Not to mention that just any old DNA won't do. One reason Jurassic Park doesn't work is that unless you've got the DNA from sex cells, all you get is a frog with Stegosaurus/Triceratops/whatever blood (because all you have is blood cells from the mosquito). Getting some DNA from a mounted skin just gets you muscle DNA. CFLeon (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park proposed cloning won’t work, but not for those reasons. 1) Having just DNA or a codified sequence won’t work for (reproductive) cloning; you need a functioning whole nucleus. 2) There is no such thing as blood DNA or muscle DNA. Actually every cell in the body that has a nucleus has a complete set of chromosomes of it inside it. In the movie the process was simplified, but introducing the nucleus (that is the whole DNA) in a related species egg could in theory work, but hasn’t worked until now. 3) Lastly you may or may not have nuclei in blood cells, which make extracting DNA from blood cells difficult. Since modern birds and reptiles have nucleated blood cells, we can make an argument on whether actually Dinosaurs had nucleated blood cells; but probably due to their size they did not have nuclei, since the nucleus is lost to accommodate for more oxygen carrying capacity. 4) DNA from “sex cells” would be of no use in cloning since “sex cells”, are haploid and only have half the set of chromosome. 5) The modern reproductive cloning process is done by transferring the nucleus of a donor adult cell (any nucleated cell) to an egg whose nucleus, has been removed. Efiiamagus (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The other problem in the case of the passenger pigeon in regard to cloning is that we'd immediately run into the problem that eventually led to their extinction in the first place. That being, passenger pigeons apparently had to have a remarkably high minimum number within their species in order to ensure survival, possibly in the thousands. Before they had died out in the early 1900s, there were attempts to get pairs of the pigeons to mate - unsuccessfully, obviously. So, unless we're ever prepared to clone hundreds or even thousands of them, I'm not sure it would work. And even in order to do so, I'm guessing we'd probably want to get as many DNA samples as possible to create a varying gene pool in order to reduce inbreeding - and I'm not even sure that would be possible. There has been serious discussion about this among some scientific circles though, and also in regard to other extinct species (Thylacine comes to mind). It might happen one day - but it won't surprise me if it's not in my lifetime. Harry Yelreh (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

help please

i have a question how did the arival of the europeans efect the poupltion of passengers pigions in canda???????????? -- (from Jake)

Europeans shot them all, so I suppose that had some effect on their extinction. :-) StuRat 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not what the article says; read it a little more carefully. The Passenger Pigeon was no more numerous than other North American birds until the coming of the Europeans, who brought new diseases with them that decimated some Native American populations. Because the Native Americans who controlled their numbers through hunting were suddenly less numerous in some areas, the Pigeon population exploded. The vast numbers encouraged expansive hunting, which evolved into commercial hunting, which led to the decline and extinction of the species. Jake's question was "how did the arival of the europeans efect the poupltion" (sic), and the answer is the arrival of the Europeans affected the population by reducing human predation leading to a population explosion, not that "they shot them all". The extinction was a result of commercial overhunting, not a result of the arrival of the Europeans. 12.22.250.4 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I really find the statement "The species had not been common in the Pre-Columbian period, until the devastation of the American Indian population by European diseases" doesn't belong in this article, It's kind of confusing to say the least and I suspect it's just an attempt to inject the plight of the American Indian in an article about Passenger pigeons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.19 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology

Well, there are some refs (and more will be upcoming maybe) on prehistoric PP finds, BUT this begs a major question: what happened to the roosts? I mean, they must have been massive! Does anybody known of any research regarding former roost sites? All that I know is that prehistoric finds (subfossils and fossils) of PPs are so rare it's really shocking. There must be entire mounds of bones around - but where? Us this species something that had a fringe existence until humans (Native Americans in this case) started to modify the landscape, providing it with habitat? When did it evolve its unique lifestyle? Questions over questions - for such an emblematic bird, astoundingly little certain is known about its life history! Dysmorodrepanis 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Population

If there was a population of 5 billion, and a flock of 2 billion, was almost half of the population really in one flock? Philc _T^E_C^I 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think that's a bit hard to swallow. AOB 14:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One book had a quite precise figure of 2,230,272,000 birds for said flock. I've no idea how reliable this is considered nowadays. The breeding range appears quite small compared to the total population, so the idea of a single flock having a great portion of the total population doesn't seem completely implausible. One has to wonder the accuracy of 19th century estimates of such magnitude, however. I've seen the total population given as high as 9,000 million, but more commonly at 3,000 to 5,000 million. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else find the name of the parasites on the CO-EXTINCTION area to be really fake

"Columbicola extinctus" LOL extinctus sounds like made up latin and if it isn't made up it would have had to already been extinct before scientists discovered it in order for it to be named that, which just doesnt seem very logical to me

without citations i think it should be deleted [unsigned]

Does this count as a good citation? SeanAhern 16:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the IP was talking about the name of the speices -- and to that, all I can say is that, you know, English is partly and inheriotr of Latin, so just because a word looks and awful lot like the English equivalent doesn't mean it's made-up. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"extinctus" isn't made-up Latin: the English "extinct" comes directly from Latin "extinctus", explaining the similarity. it sounds odd for it to have already been extinct before its discovery but i'm guessing that's how it happened; they maybe deduced its existence from its relationship with the pigeon (as it were) – tomasz. 20:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the name is very correct! And citations of articles which include the name are correctly cited in the article. Peter Maas\^talk 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Size, mass, coloration

Why is there nothing in the entry about the average size of the Passenger Pigeon, its wingspan, observed colorations, etc? There's nothing in the article, at this time, that explains what distinguished them from the modern common pigeons we're familiar with, other than that they were hunted to extinction. I've heard that they were much larger birds, but there's nothing in this entry that verifies or refutes that, and I'm really very surprised because those seem like they should be basic starter facts for an article like this. -- Lara

Well there's a good chance citations of this nature don't exist, it didn't go extinct in 1996, 'recently extinct' is a broad term after all. So there wasn't really ever extreamly detailed studise

There is voluminous information on the Passenger Pigeon in the ornithological literature, including measurements from specimens--somebody just needs to add it. This has been on my "to do" list for a while, just like a lot of things. I'll try to make some additions in the next few days, but that should not stop anyone else with access to good information! --Cotinis 14:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Has any DNA been recovered?

Just wondering. Esn 07:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See above secion. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

With all the Stuffed birds still around I belive there must be DNA. I really think the problem is the number of birds it would take to form a colony (many thousands)capable of surviving. In the late 19th century Passenger Pigeon were protected in most places but flocks with thousands of birds still died out because many for than that are needed to survive in a colony. Besides I can't imagine our sky's today filled with endless flocks of 100's of millons of birds. What with air travel, and I couldn't imagine the health problem the droppings of a 100 millon birds would cause. Also there is no habitat for a millon bird colony anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.19 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

In reading the article I was struck by how the lead never gave any reasons for the decline. I embarked on some minor edits and ended up doing quite a large reorganization - and reading many of the references. Hope it is to the liking of the regular editors of this page. mukerjee (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle Disease Link

I found a reference to Newcastle disease and passenger pigeons on two pages at nationalzoo.si.edu, but no direct link. I have inserted a small parag on this; it would be nice if someone can verify / expand on it. mukerjee (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Last Sighting Edit

There is a commented out part in the middle of the article on the last sightings in Arkansas and louisiana. I think these add some drama to the article. I found the source of the Dury quote and inserted it. Perhaps the other two could also be sourced, and at least referred to in a more compact way. mukerjee (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rarity before 1492

Footnote added on 2 August 2007, with reference is:

"Prior to 1492, this was a rare species." Mann, Charles C. [2005-08-12]. "The Artificial Wilderness", 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 315–8. ISBN 1-4000-4006-X.

I don't doubt the validity of the reference to the statement, but the validity of the statement itself. There has been a fair amount written about the abundance of the Passenger Pigeon in the very early colonial period, which was really before the massive die-off of Native American populations, I believe. Peter Matthiessen, in Wildlife in America (1987 Viking edition), page 56, says that Jacques Cartier (voyages to New World 1534-1542) had been "struck by its abundance" and that Champlain "slaughtered quantities on the coastal islands in his early trips to New France" (circa 1613). In particular, the early observations of Cartier do not square with the bird being rare before 1492--it was only about 40 years after Columbus that he found the bird abundant. I just don't think it is plausible that the bird went from "rare" to abundant in 40 years. Furthermore, I believe Native American populations were fine at that point. The devastating smallpox epidemics occurred starting in 1520 in Mexico and not until 1617 in northeastern North America. (This review of Mann's book talks about a big epidemic in 1620 in Massachussetts.)

I believe, too, that the bones of Passenger Pigeons are fairly common in archeological sites going back way before European colonization, indicating that the bird was abundant and exploited. (A rare species does not get hunted much--it is not worth the trouble.) I'll have to try to find that reference. (Yes, I see references on the Internet stating that Passenger Pigeon remains are not common in midden sites--such as the review of Mann's book above, but other references say that they are, such as this one describing sites in North Carolina.)

I've not read Mann's book, and I'm sure he has many good points about ecological effects of Native American populations. I agree wholeheartedly that Native Americans must have have huge ecological effects in the Pre-Columbian era. For instance, it is believed American Bison moved east in the 17th and 18th centuries concurrent with the die-off of Native Americans in the east, and I'm sure Mann talks about that. However, I think the statement that the Passenger Pigeon was "rare" before 1492 is, basically, incorrect. --Cotinis 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Mann says:

Given passenger pigeons' Brobdignagian appetites for mast and maize, one would expect that Indians would also have hunted them and wanted to keep down their numbers. Thus their bones should be plentiful at archaeological sites. Instead, [Thomas W.] Neumann told me, "they almost aren't there — it looks like people just didn't eat them." Pigeons, roosting en masse, were easy to harvest, as the Seneca hunt [in 1782] showed. "If they are so easy to hunt, and you expect people to minimize labor and maximize return, you should have archaeological sites just filled with these things. Well, you don't." To Neumann, the conclusion was obvious: passenger pigeons were not as numerous before Columbus. "What happened was that the impact of European contact altered the ecological dynamics in such a way that the passenger pigeon took off." The avian throngs Audubon saw wee "outbreak populations — always a symptom of an extraordinarily disrupted ecological system."

Intrigued by Neumann's arguments, William I. Woods, [no relation to me] the Cahokia researcher, and Bernd Herrmann, an environmental historian at the University of Göttingen, surveyed six archaeological studies of diets at Cahokia and places nearby. All were not far from the site of the huge pigeon roost that Audubon visited. The studies examined household food trash and found tht traces of passenger pigeon were rare. Given that Cahokians consumed "almost every other animal protein source," Herrmann and Woods wrote, "one must conclude that the passenger pigeon was simply not available for exploitation in significant numbers."

Some archaeologists have criticized these conclusions on the grounds that passenger pigeon bones would not be likely to be preserved. If so, their absence would reveal nothing about whether Indians ate the species. But all six Cahokia projects found plenty of bird bones, and even some tiny bones from fish; one turned up 9,053 bones from 72 bird species. "They found a few passenger pigeon bones, but only a few," Woods told me. "Now, these were hungry people who were very interested in acquiring protein. The simplest explanation for the lack of passenger pigeons bones is a lack of passenger pigeons. Prior to 1492, this was a rare species."

Maybe there was regional variation, with the birds more common in the northeast than in the more-densely populated area around Cahokia? And Cahokia was abandoned in the fourteenth century, so the story may be more complicated.

The North Carolina webpage seems unclear. Under Zooarchaeological Remains, it says,

"Thirty-nine taxa of birds have been identified in collections from North Carolina archaeological sites. Many of these were of economic importance. Among these are ... the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), all species that could be obtained in large numbers."

But under Chronological Patterning, it says

"We have no identified remains of birds from contexts older than the Middle Woodland period, and we have only four taxa that have been identified in Middle Woodland contexts: ... passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo).

We have relatively few birds identified from Mississippian contexts. The identified taxa include the turkey, but surprisingly not migratory waterfowl or the passenger pigeon. Birds are also poorly represented in Protohistoric and Contact period sites from the Piedmont region. One species of duck (the lesser scaup [Aytha affinis]), the passenger pigeon, turkey, flicker (Colaptes auratus), and cardinal (Richmondena cardinalis) have been identified from late sites in the Piedmont." —wwoods 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, lots of fascinating research. Sorry if I was a bit unclear in my comments above. I'll see if I can dig up some more accounts of the early colonial period. I recall seeing one that mentioned they were a staple food of the first European colonists, but I'm not sure of the exact time period. I guess my main quibble is the term "rare". I don't have any problem with the idea that the bird became more abundant with the post-Columbian ecological changes, but the earliest European accounts from the northeast mention them as common. (The upper Midwest was not explored by Europeans for some time, so I guess there are no accounts from say, the 16th century for that area.) The archeology, I think, is tricky to interpret and not that consistent, as your thorough research shows. I'll add a note here if I find anything significant. --Cotinis 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Stool pigeon

This item in the "Popular culture" section is suspect:

The term "stool pigeon" was first coined when passenger pigeons were captured, had their eyelids sewn shut, and were tied to stools. The birds sitting on the stools would be used as live decoys so pigeon hunters would have an easier shot at their quarry. Today, it is a term used for an unscrupulous person giving information about someone's misbehavior or illegal activity.

The citation given does include this info, but only as one of several possible etymologies, and there is the subtle implication is that this particular one is spurious. Should this item be deleted, or should all of the other given etymologies be added? As it is, it's essentially a misquotation of the cited source because it includes only one of several unconfirmed definitions, yet presents it as truth and disregards the other possibilities. 12.22.250.4 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have any range maps?????

Avram Primack (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

mind blowing

I just wanted to comment that this story is one of the most amazing things I've read on Wikipedia. I had never heard of the carrier pigeon, nor of its debacle, until reading this article. This is a testament to the stupidity of man, and the awesomeness of Wikipedia. thanks. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 13:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't give up hope, Agradman. At the risk of being pilloried as a nutcase, I wish to state that I have seen this bird live in British Columbia Canada. Today I examined two stuffed specimens in the Ulster Museum, Belfast. As a result, I am prepared to state that it is the same bird which was a bit of a pest when I was building a road in the woods a couple of years ago. I think there is a remnant population waiting to be discovered. Agricola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.23.19 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be an interesting scoop. One thing to point out: It's the passenger pigeon, not the carrier pigeon, which is a domesticated rock pigeon aka rock dove. There is no shortage of that type of pigeon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There was some guy who used to show up on variety series like The Ed Sullivan Show, and had some trained pigeons (rock doves, not passenger pigeons), that would do tricks, like waltzing and such. One of them would walk along pulling cargo in a small trailer that it was strapped into. That must be where they get the term pigeon-towed. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agricola, have you any photos of the birds that you have seen in BC, Canada? Krasss (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the bird you saw in the woods was not a mourning dove? This bird has a strong population and has a close resemblance to the passenger pigeon. Lost on Belmont (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Explination of edits earlier

Why can't I even make minor copyedits here? It makes no sense how the single bird Martha needs a separate section, especially when there is a section discussing other late survivors. The section on Martha also includes some unrelated information an attempts to preserve the Passenger Pigeon, as pointed out by that anonymous editor earlier. Related species quite obviously belong as part of the taxonomy section. —innotata 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Martha is not just a single bird, it is a symbol of extinction of species because of human's activity (there are several memorial statues of Martha [1], and somewhere here was a discussion about creating a separate article about her). For the same reason, the text about failed attempt in Ohio should be there, so as it was stated there that "passenger pigeons needs no protection", and the last pigeon, Martha, died only 57 years later after this stupid statement, and it is not an "unrelated information". About merging "Closest species" and "Taxonomy" sections, I am not against. Krasss (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you stop undoing everything I do, and carefully change what you do disagree with until this can be sorted out (I've been doing this, but I'll stop editing this page entirely for a bit)? Even if Martha is highly important as the last Passenger Pigeon, it makes some sense to discuss other late survivors, or make this into a section. It makes no sense to combine this with the discussion of the proposals to protect this bird ages before Martha's death—this is "cheesy and unencyclopedic", as the anon editor put it. The section currently called "description" obviously is about "distribution"; either taxonomy or a description (of physical charateristics etc.) tends to start an organism article. This page is in bad shape, and it is not worth improving if even minor edits are undone. —innotata 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree that "Description" section is about "Distribution" and renamed it back to your version (although, "Description" section should be created too). About other your comments, I disagree. Other survivors of P. pigeons were WILD and all the sightings of them (after 1900) were unconfirmed (and they should not be merged with Martha section). Krasss (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll just ignore this article, take it off my watch-list; I can't do much to improve it like this. —innotata 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

a Rowan Atkinson connection?

In the latter Black Adder series, a pigeon landed in the trench "Captain Blockudder" was fighting from. He shot the pigeon, ate it for lunch, and read a note stating that the pigeon was the last of his species. Anyone killing him would be shot.

Was that the passenger pigeon? (85.164.223.175 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Slaughter

That word derives from "slay", as in "kill", and refers to butchery or to killing on a large scale.[2] The word carries no meaning of any particular method of killing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Methods of Killing / Stool pigeon

I am skeptical that a hunter who crushes a bird's head in their hands would take the time to gently sew a bird's eyelids shut with a fine thread, they would just gouge its eyes out if the intention was to blind it. I think the primary sources used in this reference [3] shed a great deal of doubt on the reference [4] to which the section is attributed. I'd also point out that it is nothing more than an anecdote attributed to Henry W. Shoemaker, a "folklorist", as an explanation of the term "stool pigeon". In light of the etymology presented in this [5] reference, I don't think there is enough here to support any of that section as a fact. --MoonLichen (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

An interesting story and metaphor

Midkiff, Perry Tyson, II (Friday, February 13, 2009). "May the Passenger Pigeon Sing Thee to Thy Rest— Second-Place Winner". Austin Chronicle. Retrieved February 29, 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) I didn't put this in to the article, as I am not sure it is a good fit. However, it is a really good short story and a powerful metaphor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Best collection of quotes about the Passenger Pigeon

Stukel, Eileen Dowd. "Passenger Pigeon". South Dakota Game Fish & Parks. Retrieved March 2, 2012. It may not be "the best", but it is close. Some of this material should be put in, and it comes from old sources that antedate 1923. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good article?

I've added over 10000 bytes, more than a dozen references, and put in a lot of links. There are a tremendous number of linked sources now. I nominated and got it promoted to a "B". I think that if we could all work together, this could soon be ready to be nominated for GA. I would appreciate some helping hands form the 89 watchers here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to help, what do you think the article needs? I will see if I can find some info missing in the article from the sources available to me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

More info on the extent of the flocks, the value of the killings (they had a glut, and were feeding them to hogs, and could barely recover the costs of railroad transport for the casks. Methods of killing (e.g., stool pigeon, snares). The ineffectiveness of legal sanctions could use some amplification. The methods of slaughter were utterly wasteful, pissed away a seemingly inexhaustible resource, and took advantage of the congregative affinity of these birds, which had been their previous strength against natural depredation. The South Dakota article has some good quotes, as does the very first source in the footnotes. There is also the one "citation needed" which I don't like. If we all put in one or two sentences, with a suitable citation, we could double the size of the article. Thanks for offering to help.

That Michigan in particular was at the time in the middle of its lumber boom (which was wiping out a lot of habitat and food supply) could be amplified on. Increased farming was destructive of the forest habitat, and presumably encouraged the slaughter. One can imagine that the arrival of an unending vast cloud of birds on a farmer's field would be viewed like a 'plague of locusts.' Of course, the farmer's killed off the swarm of locusts, too.

And of course, if we're getting a GA, everything needs an in line citation.

Because this is in some ways the "holocaust" of environmental depredation (I apologize to those who will I know take offense to the metaphor), I know these weren't human beings— but the wantonness, method, scale and utter callousness of the depredation of nature is unspeakably barbaric— I think that this article is also underrated in terms of its importance. Extinction is forever, and mass extinction under these circumstances was foreseeable. I would also note that one blog I ran across said something like, "what's the big deal about this pigeon?" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wisconsin rookery was perhaps the biggest ever (dimensions would be good). There is a historical marker. A couple of the sources mention it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aldo Leopold paid a tribute to the passenger pigeon in southwest Wisconsin, and I have quoted it and added a separate citation for an even larger nesting in central Wisconsin. I have moved a couple of sentences dealing with lexicographic aspects from the heading to their own section, which I hope no one will mind. Bigturtle (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've altered some of the language of the Encyclopedia Smithsonian blockquote in the Behavior section; if this is a problem, 7+6 should change it back. Bigturtle (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced statement about ancestors, and replaced it with some info on the fossil record of the bird. Direct ancestry cannot be determined with fossils anyway, so the sentence was erroneous. I'll take a look at the bird's entry in "Extinct Bird's" by Errol Fuller and see if there are any omissions of info here. I'll also check Google scholar, these papers look interesting, but they don't have free abstracts[6][7]. We should also make sure that there is no unique information found in the intro that cannot be found in the text body. Quotes and such should probably be moved to the article itself. The Great Auk article could be a good role model for this one. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The birds were important in Algonquian mythology. French, John C. (1919). The Passenger Pigeon in Pennsylvania. Altoona, Pa: Altoona Tribune. Retrieved March 4, 2012. {{cite book}}: Text "Altoona Tribune Co" ignored (help) at Internet Archive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

To what extend should we use quotes? I filled the dodo page with quotes, since paraphrasing them would just be interpretation of some very ambiguous statements. But it is different with this bird, since it died out so recently and there are many non-ambiguous descriptions and good surviving specimens/illustrations. On the other hand, some books republish old quotes about the bird at length, and we can do that here too, since the quotes are old enough to be in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotes are essential to the act of conveying a metaphorical understanding of a flock of passenger pigeons as a social organism. While old quotes from us humans about animals' interrelationships with each other always anthropomorphize the species or specimens under study, and the potential of this approach to mislead readers should not be minimized, there is no other way to describe what this species was able to accomplish: a cooperative social life that could recruit tens or even hundreds of millions of individual specimens into the common purpose of a communal roost. Bigturtle (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There are some good (mainly Audubon) quotes in Extinct Birds by Errol Fuller, but I'm afraid it's a bit of a tedious task to type it all in. Maybe the quotes can be found elsewhere as well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotes can be found here[8], but the formatting is horrible. Perhaps the Smithsonian quote, which simply quotes other quotes, could e replaced by primary source quotes? FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes, 7&6=thirteen, and luckily we don't have to worry about copyright. Audubon died in 1851 (far more than 70 years ago), so all his illustrations and writings are in the public domain, so we can copy and use all his writings of the bird freely. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I knew that. It was just that I had lifted a whole page from the web. I don't want to get in a fight with a bot that has no reason. I know they are out there, and they deter me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. But I think exceptions can be added to their coding, maybe we could request that it be done if it shows up? In any case, I defnitely think we should use some of the quotes in the article. There is also a good one by J.M. Wheaton from 1882 about how a flock manoeuvred that could be used. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Still up to getting this to GA? I've gotten a better overview of the process recently, while working on other extinct bird articles. I can contribute mainly with info found in the two books both called Extinct Birds I have. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per below and the the currently enshrined exception at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles as noted in WP:LOWERCASE and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms. I personally disagree with the exception, but if this is to change, doing it piecemeal is not the way to go and is a recipe for discord.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Passenger Pigeon → Passenger pigeon – From both of the online dictionaries I've seen (dictionary.com, m-w.com), "passenger pigeon" does not seem to be a proper noun. On a side note, I think "wild pigeon" needs a citation; it seems to generic. Enervation (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose as it is a proper name for a species of bird (birds are the only organisms with internationally decreed proper names). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly; it's not a proper name. The reason we capitalize bird species common names is because the birders have decided to do so (that is, the WP birders have a local consensus to follow that part of the ornithology field that has decided to capitalize bird species common names, even though that is contrary to WP's usual style as articulated in MOS:CAPS). There's no need to pretend that it's more than that. It certainly does not reflect style outside WP. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

this bunch does - producing this which is updated every few months, including frequent discussions on Correct Names of birds - note names all capitalised..bit like planets, stars, continents, cities....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's them right there... Oddly, they also capitalize the generics, as in "Loons, Penguins and Petrels". Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons indicated above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Does this help towards establishing common name?
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The common name is well known, and current WP naming guidelines give the bird species titles exception to the usual rule in MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Auk 100-103 The Capitalization of Birds' Names |first1=Anselm |last1=Atkins

I recently ran into that issue myself, by suggesting a move of Wild Turkey (although not just because of the capitalization). An interesting reference that someone pointed me to was this article. I am a bit surprised to see that Wikipedia follows the ornithological specialty literature convention rather than using a consistent style designed for more broadly general work. Probably these renaming suggestions pop up over and over and over as individuals discover articles that don't seem to follow the ordinary format because they happen to be about birds or butterflies. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Atkins, Anselm (October, 1983). "The Capitalization of Birds' Names" (PDF). The Auk. 100: 1003-1004. Retrieved June 27, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Great article. Very insightful. There is room to differ. I still think that the ornithologists and birders and their practice should win out. Of course, there should be and is a redirect for "Passenger pigeon" to "Passenger Pigeon". 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support; treat bird names the same as any other species on earth. Powers ^T 14:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I personally don't think bird names should be capitalized, but it's acceptable according to the MOS. Until that changes there is no reason to rename the article. Tdslk (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for consistency. All other Wiki bird articles appear to be capitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Etymology of tourtière, probably not pigeon related.

I Loved this article and as a vegetarian Québécois I was fascinated by the paragraph stating that the traditional meat-pie of Quebec, Tourtiere, is named after the Passenger Pigeon meat that was its main ingredient. It's always nice when a famous, veg-hostile dish is intimately linked with a holocaust right? I researched it a bit more before posting this fun fact on Facebook and unfortunately found nothing but controversy. The Tourtiere article makes no mention of passenger pigeons as an etymological explanation, instead saying (IMHO incorrectly) that it's named after the cooking vessel used to bake the pie (the dish was named after the pie). It turns out there WAS a pigeon related explanation in the past but the passage was removed due to a cooksinfo.com source claiming the theory was just a myth invented in the 20th century (see the talk page). I questioned the veracity of their confidence and researched wiktionary, which led to the realization that whether the pigeon etymology of tourtière is true or not, it is widespread on the wikis of the world. The english wiktionary article claims outright that tourtière is named after tourte, the onomatopoeia for sounds pigeons make, because that was the original ingredient. The French wiktionary article doesn't mention pigeons but just states its from the root word tourte. On both English and French wiktionaries "tourte" is given two completely separate etymologies, one being pigeon based on their sound and the other being meat pie based on the related torta (loaf/bread). This explains how reasonable people could come to both conclusions as they are both possible reasons why québécois meat pie would be called Tourtiere. All that said I have to conclude that it's actually the meat pie definition that came first and not the pigeon one. This article by a Universite Du Quebec a Montreal culinary history expert goes through a deep history of tourtière including its pre-Quebec European heritage as a name for various fancy meat pies (the meat pies were called tourte, the cooking dish was the tourtière). Between that and the cooksinfo reference I think we unfortunately need to alter this passenger pigeon article to reflect the refuted or at least contested nature of the passenger pigeon etymology of tourtière. IMHO the paragraph should remain (because it is clearly a popular belief and is fascinating linguistically) but with the caveat added that some experts believe in an alternate theory. The wiktionary articles should also be edited to reflect the best available knowledge. Jeremyclarke (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked the article.

I agree. I suggest you either put it in the article, or you put it under "refgroup alpha". You'll figure it out. Trying to unravel cross lingual history (and indeed, cross national lines -- all Francophones are not fungible goods -- is especially tricky. Just take a look at World Wide Words, and he's nominally trying to deal with one language at a time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed all reference to tourtière from this article. Adding "both sides" to an article when the information in question is peripheral to the topic tends to detract rather than add; plus, it would require that reliable sources could be obtained for both sides, and I have discovered none (to date) for the position that tourtière derives from the Quebecois word for pigeon. Richigi (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Clutch size

This article only mentions a single egg being laid, but Hume & Walters (2012) state two eggs were occasionally laid. Any other references to this? FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Habitat

The habitat section needs improvement and citations to link the lack of habitat to the species demise. I have left it in and cleaned it up, but someone will need to improve this section if it is actually important. 70.36.212.48 (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Audubon's Reproduction Quote Controversy

My main source (Blockstein) casts doubt on Audubon's description of a courtship charge, as does the other source noting that this was never seen in captivity. Does anyone have an opinion on the quote? Should we leave it as is with warning text following, cut it out, or trim it to describe the billing process? By the way, my rough draft (barring the lead) of everything above the Extinction sections should be done by the time I log out tonight. I still have a few more things to put in Ecology, and I want to give it a nice copyedit. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Done for the night. Draft version of everything (barring lead) before the Extinction sections is up. I'll copyedit it in the morning. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In other articles where doubt had been cast about quotes, I used the sources to discuss the issues in the text, and left the quotes in. The "truth" can never be known in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Organizing the End

I've been thinking about how to organize the article after the Ecology and Behavior section. I'm going to try for one big heading, Relationship with humans, to cover it all. Directly under Relationship with humans will be anything not relevant to its extinction, including anything pop culture. Immediately under this would be Hunting, which is self-explanatory, then Extinction, which includes its Extinction in the wild, habitat loss, references to hunting, and most of the attempts at preservation. After Extinction will be Martha, which will include a snippet of her story and details of her flock, plus a link to her article. Then (possibly) will be a De-Extinction subheading based on all of the recent discussions. I'm going to go ahead and try to implement this, but I am open to splitting it differently if there are any other proposals. I'm going to be working on these sections for the next few days, so please propose any counter-organizing here for discussion instead of trying to implement it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, I say go ahead and do it your way, you're doing the work after all! If anything is wrong, it will be dealt with during GAN and FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the pictures by the way. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of word in French

That tourtiere was used in New France to describe a meat pie is not the same as saying that was the origin of the word. You have confused cause and effect. No one is claiming this is the False etymology, other than you. this is a straw man argument, and is False logic premised on a fallacy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In any event, the WP:RS supports the statements as produced in the article. You are making claims based on WP:OR without WP:RS. Hypotheteically, even if you had sources, that does not equate to eliminating the statement from the article. See WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

added "Etymology and usage" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pigeon pie is cuisine, not etymology

If there is evidence that passenger pigeons were put into tourtiere, then I contend that such information belongs in the "Relationship with humans" section. (However, see this history of Lac St Jean tourtiere; pigeon is only mentioned as an ingredient in sea-pie.) Adding the information under "Etymology" is misleading, implying that the two words are etymologically related when they are not. Richigi (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I retitled the section to address your concern. If you want to put "and cuisine" I would agree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem determined to include this information, 7&6=thirteen. That's good because it's very hard to find a reliable source that shows tourtiere routinely included passenger pigeon; about the most one can say is that there's no evidence it didn't sometimes include a passenger pigeon, since people eat what they can get. Anyway, since I hate edit-arguing, I'm just going to fact-tag the line and let someone else take up the torch. Richigi (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of Passenger Pigeons these days to put in pies or otherwise (Irony).

Glad we agree.

They were used as a large food source. Whole flocks were destroyed to fill casks sent to the cities. The literature is clear on that point, at least. Retitle the section if you like. Thank you for your reasonable response. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Humans not solely to blame for passenger pigeon extinction?

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/06/humans-not-solely-blame-passenger-pigeon-extinction 132.3.65.80 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional section on de-extinction efforts

There has been significant work on bringing passenger pigeons back from extinction that warrants space in the article. This is one of the leading De-extinction projects.

http://longnow.org/revive/passenger-pigeon-workshop/

http://longnow.org/revive/what-we-do/passenger-pigeon/

108.24.87.194 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Specimens in collections

How many skins/ taxidermied specimens survive in collections (public or private)? Can we add something, if a source can be found? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Will try to have a look~later. There are many... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkMonk (talk • contribs) 09:33, 5 March 2015‎

GA

I think we need to get this article at least up to GA status, if not FA. And it should be done so that it can be on the main page on September 1, 2014, the centenary of the passing of Martha and the species' extinction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow has expressed that he wants to work on it soon.[9] FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just starting; it took an hour and a half to do the now-expanded Diet section alone. My plan is to use the BNA account of the species and apply it to every section while confirming the references already present. Hopefully I'll be able to plow through the article by the end of the week; that may be too ambitious, and I know I'll need sources on top of the BNA account for a Relationship with humans and Extinction section. I'm planning on working on Martha as well, get her to GA at least. Out of curiosity, how long can this article get? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Long enough to do the job. If it gets too long, we can have other articles that break out specific sections. There are substantial sources that are in the article that have not been extensively mined for data. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a kilobyte limit, but I think it's pretty high. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Size doesn't really seem to matter, the recent FA elephant is a whopping 114 kb. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• I just got the new book by Errol Fuller about this bird, haven't read it yet, but I guess it could be a good starting point as synthesis of the literature. Anyone else want to join in? Rufous-crowned Sparrow seems to have disappeared in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Passenger pigeon

I can't speak for Wikipedia, but I would think that as a matter of policy we welcome all editors. And we would welcome and look forward to the contribution of the students at Rutgers University Extinction course. (Which you said would be forthcoming in this edit). Welcome. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

While that is definitely true, students should please note that it does not imply that pages will be "left alone" or accorded any special status for the duration of that project. Other editors will and should enhance the material concurrently as they see fit, and that is actually desirable as it prevents debatable edits from being "baked in" by subsequent ones, which makes them harder to work with later on. One way of avoiding clashes might be to construct more or less finished segments over some time, either in sandbox space or using "show preview", and only commit them once they seem well-rounded.-- Elmidae (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer review (Missing archive)

I note that there was a peer review of the article and that it supposedly was archived. Passenger pigeon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. But I can't find the archive and it seems to be missing. This could be useful to all of our editors, and especially those Rutgers students we hope will come in board. Where is the archive? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Passenger pigeon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As promised, I am happy to take this on. I have read through the article some time back and thought it was a good read, but didn't pay close enough attention to thoroughly check against the standard criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! As noted on your talk, I'm aware of the citation issues (such as bare urls and stuff like that), I'll fix those after everything else is fixed, as I really hate filling out citation templates, hehe... Also, this article may be a bit messy at places, since some old text and links not written or added by me have been kept, so I'm happy that you're giving them a critical look! FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I should also add that the "Recreation of the species" section is a bit of mess that I'll rewrite soon... FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is about right for an article of this size. At 62K, it looks at first glance to be comprehensive.

Cool, I'll add a bit on plumage colouration, though, as is customary for bird articles. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about the severity of extinction, as so many sources I looked at mentioned it, and it's also in the article body Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• The two clauses of the second sentence end "closest relative" and "closest relations"; could one be changed to avoid repetition?

Snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Passenger pigeons were hunted by Native Americans, but hunting became intensified after the arrival of Europeans" - was that immediately after the establishment of Europeans in the early-mid 17th century, or sometime later?

Clarified, better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• The source Ecology and Management of the Mourning Dove needs specific facts cited to specific pages in order to be properly verifiable. I realise the entire book is about the topic, broadly speaking, but fact checkers shouldn't need to search for a needle in a haystack.

Done, the info was on a single page... FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• http://http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12158465#page/152/mode/1up would benefit from some formatting, the source is actually the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Several other archive.org sources have the same problem, we should give the full original citation as well as the URL to cope with link rot.

Done this for all journal urls. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• The source labelled "Ecology and Management of the Mourning Dove" needs more information

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The cladogram below follows a DNA study by Fulton et al., 2012" - who are "Fulton et al." in this context?

Added some names prior to this... FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Illinois Natural History Society sources require a login

Which ref is that? Can't see it, perhaps I've removed it since? FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't see it now either, so I guess it was refactored and removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• What makes http://etymonline.com/ and http://cooksinfo.com reliable sources?

Removed the first one (included it because it had a date of first usage, but not that important), but I can't find good sources that explain the Canadian pie thing... Perhaps [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] knows of something? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a closer look - the site's main content can only be edited by a small number of staff, who have claims to be experts in their field. I was a bit twitchy given it claimed something reported to be true is in fact false, but it doesn't sound like a particularly extraordinary fact. I'll let it pass for now, just that if this goes to FAC it may be challenged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

• The reference http://www.myaamiaproject.org/documents/costa_biblio/st_jerome_dictionary_costa.pdf appears to be dead

Found a working link. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• "There were also accidental records from Scotland, Ireland, and France, although these birds may have been escaped captives, or the records simply incorrect." - although this is sourced, is it likely that any passenger pigeons were genuinely recorded in Europe?

No recent sources seem to suggest that, and it is also pointed out that quite a large number of captive birds (350 by Audubon alone) were brought to Europe... FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ecology and behavior

• "Such migrations, in flocks numbering billions, was a spectacle without parallel." - this sounds a bit too whimsical for an encyclopedia, could we tone it down a bit?

Toned down (was remnant text). FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Even today the passenger pigeon's historic population" - "today" tends to date, I assume "Even in the 21st century" or similar should suffice here?

Made more general, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The species is estimated to have numbered three to five billion at the height of its population" - the source http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/779939pass.html claims six billion

That source is not used for that particular claim, as it is from 1986, more recent sources have been used for the 3-5 claim... FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The passenger pigeon was one of the most social land birds" - does this mean in the US or globally?

Added "all" in front of land birds. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The passenger pigeon's historic population is roughly the equivalent of the number of birds that overwinter in the United States every year in modern times" - "in the 21st century" would be more appropriate than "modern times" (assuming that's what the source says)

I made it "early 21st century" to be more specific, we don't know how it'll be in the future... FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "mainly persisting around 1/10,000 of the several billions estimated in the 1800s" - I don't think this is quite what the source (http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/06/humans-not-solely-blame-passenger-pigeon-extinction) says, though it does mention "the number of pigeons had fluctuated by up to 1000-fold during multiple population shrinkages and growths over the previous million years"

That is based on the other source at the end of the sentence, the actual study, I could remove the science mag ref entirely without any loss, but I was thinking it didn't hurt to let it stay... FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "their large numbers for an indefinite time, perhaps as little as a few nights, other times much longer periods" - this is a bit vague, we could rewrite this as "from a few days to ...." but I don't know what the typical maximum length of stay was in the source

No maximum is given, should I just leave it at "indefinite"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "the passenger pigeons packed so densely on branches at roosting sites that even thick ones often broke under their collective weight" - presumably "thick ones" refers to trees in this instance?

It refers to the thick branches/"limbs", should it be made clearer? I think I've heard of entire stems being broken, but I can't seem to find such claims in recent sources, maybe it's just hearsay... FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at copyediting this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "However, it is unknown how long a wild pigeon lived" - rather than "unknown", it would be better to say something like "undocumented" or "unrecorded"

Took "undocumented". FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "he bird is believed to have played a large ecological role" .... "With the sheer numbers in the flocks" .... "Due to these considerable influences" - I think this entire paragraph needs to be toned down

Toned down, enough? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The pigeon could eat and digest 0.1 kg of acorns per day" - the source citing this could do with a little more information on where to find it - I don't think "JSTOR journals" is specific enough

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• The Utah University source documenting Columbicola extinctus certainly verifies its existence, but I couldn't see its relationship to the passenger pigeon, which is mentioned here

That info is in the other source used by the end of the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with humans

• "French explorer Jacques Cartier was the first European to report on passenger pigeons, finding them in abundance on Prince Edward Island during his first voyage in 1534" - the source given does not seem to explicitly mention Prince Edward Island

Removed location. FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Mark Catesby's 1731 illustration, the first published depiction of this bird, is somewhat crude." - crude in whose opinion?

According to at least two or three writers, I've added "according to later commentators", is it important to mention who exactly? FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• " The Birds of America .... now one of the most valuable books in the world" - I don't this is necessary, also "one of the most valuable" would be better replaced with specific figures (eg: one sold for $8M at auction according to the book's article)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Billing was perhaps not practiced by the bird either" - what does this mean?

Whoops, wrong place, must have put it there by mistake... FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/ a reliable source?

Removed and placed similar info elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "a reward of $1,200 was offered for any proof of nesting" - the source says $3,000

Good catch, the two sources are contradictory, rewritten. FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "attempts at making a rock dove foster passenger pigeon eggs." - I'm having difficulty loading the source for this, though it appears to be online

Works for me, it says "Although last ditch efforts were made to breed the few remaining passenger pigeons by Professor Charles O. Whitman at the University of Chicago and by the Cincinnati Zoo, breeding efforts (including cross-fostering passenger pigeon eggs with a rock dove Columba livia) were insufficient to sustain the small captive population (Deane 1908, Herman 1948)." FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• As stated above, the "Recreation of the species" subsection needs some work. eg: "spread across many institutions all over the world" - such as? The second paragraph in particular reads too much like a howto or list

I've now rewritten the section. The problem with mentioning specific museums, though, is on what grounds should they be mentioned? With hundreds of museums having multiple specimens each, it would be a bit arbitrary... Some institutions are also already mentioned in image captions, etc. The sources used for those sentences don't even list individual institutions, just cities and countries. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if we don't have sources specifying anything then it's not a problem leaving that "many institutions" as is, since that's verifiable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Last survivors

• "The American Ornithologists' Union meeting in 1909...." - this sentence appears to be a close paraphrase of http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/critters/birds/passenger-pigeon.aspx

Changed, though being a US government site, the text is actually PD... FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Sorry, this is a bit of a long slog. I've gone through the article and I think this can meet the GA criteria once all the comments are addressed and the remaining work is completed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem, it's a long article, it's the holidays, and I'm a bit hungover anyway, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

All issues should be addressed, though I've left a few questions. Feel free to add any further comments (however esoteric) that would be relevant for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, I've added some extra info by the end of "last survivors", not sure if it seems off topic... FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Furthermore, the pigeons that would raise the recreated passenger pigeons" - what does that mean?

The pigeons that would lay the eggs with passenger pigeon clones in them would be some other species of pigeon, with different methods of rearing than the passenger pigeon... Do you suggest different wording? I tried with "the parent pigeons that would raise the cloned passenger pigeons would belong to a different species"... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've checked off everything else, and it's just the above comment left. I think my main thoughts for FAC is it needs a ornithology expert to confirm the information here is up-to-date and true, not just verifiable to sources. At 62K of prose, I don't think there's much more to add (at least without trimming down something elsewhere). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure the usual bird wikiproject suspects will show up at a FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well for now I can pass this, and we'll see what WikiProject birds make of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the thorough review, and happy new year, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And likewise. You've done plenty of my GAs, only fair to return the favour at long last! :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Some questions

I'm a little puzzled by this sentence in the first paragraph of the section Passenger pigeon#Distribution and habitat,

It originally bred from the southern parts of eastern and central Canada south to eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Georgia in the United States, but the primary breeding range was in southern Ontario and the Great Lakes states south through states north of the Appalachian Mountains.

particularly by the second half of the sentence:

• but the primary breeding range was in southern Ontario and the Great Lakes states south through states north of the Appalachian Mountains.

The part that really puzzled me was "and the Great Lakes states south through states north of the Appalachian Mountains". I thought the Appalachian Mountains were a mostly north-south line of mountains. I mean, maybe the mountains run north-northeast to south-southwest, but does it make sense to call states north or south of that line? Even if it does make sense to someone who knows U.S. geography really well, will it make sense to the average reader? I'm still trying to think what states are meant. Corinne (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now. Does the map help?[10] FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Caption wrong?

The following caption in the right hand column "Distribution map, with breeding zone in red and wintering zone in orange" appears to have got the colors mixed up. Can someone please either verify or correct the situation! 77.86.204.150 (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, seems the author didn't fully understand the source it was based on. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Biomass figures

Passenger pigeons were said to be the second largest species (in terms of biomass), only behind the Rocky Mountain Locust, a/k/a Rocky Mountain Grasshopper. That factoid should be included in the article. We will have to find a citation for it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

But has this been published? It was in the intro once... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sure it has. Could be in that IUCN2012 reference we just eliminated (again). But I'm not sure. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, could be nice with a more robust source, though, since the IUCN descriptions are based on other sources, not their own research. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The last sentence of the first paragraph is baffling.Charles (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Any change proposed? Or is it more the fact that is baffling? FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I also find it confusing, particularly deciding what 'this' refers to. I propose something like the following.

The physically similar mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) was long thought to be its closest relative, and the two were at times confused, but genetic analysis has shown that species in the genus Patagioenas are more closely related to it than the zenaida doves.

This also takes out any possible false scent of a meaningful distinction between pigeons and doves. William Avery (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it has been changed a couple of times in the past. I think "species in the genus" is a bit superfluous, though. "Genus" alone already includes the species contained within. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Made a change, better? FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point about my prolixity. I think it's clearer now. William Avery (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Last two sentences of the Hunting section

The last two sentences of the Hunting section are rather tortured. The gist seems to be that, unlike bison, passenger pigeons were hunted because they were agricultural pests that destroyed large amounts of crops, and that their use as food was largely incidental. Quite apart from the lack of clarity, putting "pests" in quotes seems strange and supercilious. They were, after all, exactly that, at the time. William Avery (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The sentence is accurate as it reflects the claimed attitude/justification at the time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have left that sentence from an earlier version, so I'll let you handle this, 7&6=thirteen? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought it should be left AI. That's my opinion. But I certainly will abide by talk page consensus. I understand the concern. I also think that saying flat out they were pests without the quotations is to say they are akin to vermin. And while the flocks were extraordinary, their appearances were rare and spaced-out. I concede that some would have claimed at the time that they were eradicating "pests." So I disagree with the elimination of the quotation marks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

TBH, I wan't most bothered by the quotation marks, more the clarity of the text. I will read the cited sources carefully and get back with a proposal. William Avery (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a dish

This was a common species and lots of folks ate bird. Both Native Americans and the later comers. Literature is replete with that. These facts were a big part of the motive for the mass hunting, slaughter and extinction. Removing the category doesn't change the facts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, of course it was eaten, but so are many animals. Is it common to have animal species articles categorised as cuisine, though? Perhaps something to look into, doesn't seem so from a cursory glance. See for example chicken, which we can agree on is eaten a lot more than this pigeon, it is not in a cuisine category. Maybe something like Game birds is a more appropriate category. It is at least much more inclusive, and also covers hunting for sport, which is relevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hunting for ecological spoilation? A whole new category! And they were tasty, too. I am told that the acronym for PETA is 'People Eating Tasty Animals'. Wantonly killing them and putting them in barrels made men rich. It was exploitation at an horrific level, and food/money was a big mover here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Would be a subcategory of the current "Species made extinct by human activities" then? Though a species is rarely made extinct due to a single factor, including this one. In any case, this species wasn't eradicated by native Americans, and it isn't a dish, that's why I removed that native American cuisine category, it's a bit too specific... Every species of animal ever eaten by native Americans shouldn't necessarily be part of that category, but specific dishes should. But well, I see American bison is actually part of such a category, so seems there might be some inconsistency. I still think game birds is more appropriate for this article, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I was being helpful, but ironic. Irony gets lost at the keyboard. I was not blaming the Native Americans. They had coexisted with the Passenger pigeon forever; we would have to blame the interlopers. Your suggestions make sense to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Added the game cat. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

{:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Shoot it! FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Subscription required

Put in a link to Birds of North America along iwth the subscription required template. I don't exactly know where that goes. This is a very oddly formatted citation in a lot of ways. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Notes A and C are the same

I don't know how to format/cure that. I just want it to be linked at those two places. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm not sure if it is a good idea to have a long, non-free quote in the text as is. All the other quotes are PD. And it doesn't really add any information that isn't already summarised, therefore fair use doesn't apply. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done OK. Will remove them. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

• Hmmm, this new info[11] is unsourced and rather trivial. I think at this point (very close to promotion), we should rather focus on fixing the last source issues than to introduce new text, since the article text has already been approved at FAC as is. Adding new, potentially unsourced text may be problematic, since the earlier reviews haven't taken these newer additions into account. So better get this passed before we make any such changes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Already put in sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Did not put this in to the text. The mural is located at 15 8th Street. "10 Must See Murals Cincinnati". Retrieved March 3, 2016. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Youtibe isn't considered a reliable source for FAC, though (see also NikkiMaria's comment for the footnote). Sorry if I seem a bit harsh, but it is always risky to add non-requested new material by the very end of a FAC. Since most reviews have already been made (including the important source review), these new additions won't be scrutinised. It is best not to add anything new at this time before the article has passed, so that it is absolutely certain what version the FAC reviews reflect. In addition to the iffy source, I'm not really sure about the significance of this new info to this page. It seems to be more about the mural and the artist than this bird; I think the relevant info about the mural was already in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I put comments on the FA request that tried to summarize where we are. I hope that steers them in the right direction.

Generalizations about YouTube as a source are not on point. These commentators are scholars and their comments are worthy. If not as independent sources, then they should be part of the external links. But I am not standing pat or trying to create a controversy.

For my part, I'm done until the review is completed. I'll leave the rest with you. The ball is in your court. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I suggest you have a look at these guidelines in regard to Youtube videos:[12] Also, a weird thing, seems this fact you added[13], is very similar to another one under etymology, "The Seneca people called the pigeon jahgowa, meaning "big bread", as it was a source of food for their tribes.[28]". I suggest the info be moved up there, with the rest of the native name discussion. 21:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just do it. I've managed to get help with the references. I think this was not just a random garden variety YouTube video, but was part of the film on this subject by authorities in the field. For my part I don't see it as an issue, but I leave it to your judgment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Passenger pigeon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I would support this, but I imagine as a contributor that is worth zero. I appreciate the notice. Thanks. 14:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Unscrupulous

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Hunting", paragraph 4: "An extreme method, practiced only by particularly unscrupulous hunters, was to set fire to the base of a tree nested with pigeons; the adults would flee and the juveniles would fall to the ground." Why is this "extreme" and more unscrupulous than other hunting methods? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Because it destroyed the second generation as well, but I do think the wording is a bit harsh, it is a left over. Changed a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The article describes other techniques used that specifically target the juveniles. Anyway, thank you for toning it down. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Winter sports in northern Louisiana

From "Relationship with humans", subsection"Hunting", last paragraph: "The most often reproduced of these illustrations was captioned "Winter sports in northern Louisiana: shooting wild pigeons", and published in 1875." Is there a public domain picture of this that could be added to the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is this one in the article:[14] You think the article caption should be closer to the original one? FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not just the caption! The picture should be moved to be alongside the paragraph where it is mentioned.

Currently, the picture of people with rifles/shotguns is alongside a paragraph about Native Americans who used poles/stones/clubs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that paragraph also mentions another image in the article, which is under "extinction causes" now. There simply isn't room to move them all up to the same paragraph without creating major clutter, or ugly double-images. Also, the photo of the trapper takes up all the space in that part. The images have been placed in sections where they are relevant, not necessarily the exact paragraphs, but that's the best we can do with the layout as is. The Lousiana image is used as the first image in the "hunting" section exactly because it is so well-known, and iconic for that particular subject. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Influence on forest ecosystem"

Elagi, I think that new material needs to be integrated better. My main concern is that it partly duplicates, partly contradicts content that is dealt with in the earlier Passenger_pigeon#Ecology_and_behavior section, specifically the second-to last paragraph of the main section (starting with The bird is believed to have played a significant ecological role in the composition of pre-Columbian forests). Did you take that section into account at all?

Secondarily, you also introduce a number of duplicate refs (within your new text) that should be unified. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Elmidae, I did consider that section. That section is about the influence that passenger pigeons had on the ecosystem they inhabited. The section I added was about the influence that Native Americans had on passenger pigeons through their environment. Both passenger pigeons and Native Americans acted as keystone species within that ecosystem, so there were some parallels in their influences. For example, passenger pigeons caused limbs to break and foliage beneath the trees to die. Thus there was ample fuel for fires, and Native Americans lit those fires. They were both part of the same ecosystem, so their were bound to be links between them, but I don't think there's any contradiction between the two passages.

In any case, I think it makes better sense to add material about human impact on passenger pigeons through their environment to the section titled "Relationship with humans" than to put it under "Ecology and behavior." I see this material as being more about human impact than about the ecosystem itself. I was thinking that eventually, someone might add to it, and discuss how the environment was altered after Europeans arrived and the country was founded, and explain how that affected the passenger pigeon and contributed to their extinction. (I haven't researched that part in detail, but I've seen references to the impact of deforestation, for example.)

As far as the duplicate references go, I'm aware of the problem, but there's a trade off involved. I've found that I can add a URL to a book citation that links directly to the passage in google books that I'm referencing -- or at least to the start of that passage. I think that's a useful convenience for readers, but unfortunately, adding a distinct URL to each citation seems to result in multiple citations for the same book. I think that giving specific page numbers may do the same thing. I'd like to find a solution that allows for distinct URLs and distinct page numbers without cluttering up the citations, but I haven't found it. I'd welcome any tips if someone knows how to accomplish that. --Elagi (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Elagi. Hum-hom. On rereading the stuff, I suppose you have a point. It would make for a rather unwieldy big section to combine these angles. Nor is the contradiction (I was thinking of the implied acceptance of the "giant flock size is standard state" hypothesis in the former section, and the relativizing of that in the latter) really apparent unless you specifically go looking for it. Okay, objection withdrawn :)

As for the referencing issue, your current setup is certainly something to be avoided, because the references look entirely identical in the article. I would suggest using the short citation format, which does have support for providing individual URLs for page numbers (didn't know that either). Does that meet your requirements? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think there is a problem with too much detail here, in addition to duplicate refs and contradictions. Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise the subject, but whats happening now is giving way too much focus to one particular aspect of the subject, breaking the overall balance of the article. The article is already very long, is featured, and I don't agree it needs this much more text on a single subject, which could easily be summarised. Maybe a separate article about the ecology of this bird could be split off before this article is bloated beyond readability. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Elmidae, for your suggestion about how to handle the citations. That looks like a good possibility. I see your point about the new material appearing to relativize the "giant flock size is standard state" hypothesis, but I think ultimately it reinforces it — both because the combined human and passenger pigeon DNA evidence supports that hypothesis, and because the material about Native Americans positively affecting both food supply and accessibility undercuts the assumption that Native American hunting and food competition would have suppressed passenger pigeon numbers. And FunkMonk, that's part of why I think this material is of enough interest to be worth taking up some space. I think it contributes useful information regarding the larger question of flock size in prehistory. On the other hand, I do understand your concern about breaking the overall balance of the article or adding unduly to its overall length. I'll take a look at it again and see if it could be constructively condensed down further — but in larger terms, I do think that a section on "Relationship with humans" is incomplete without addressing the ecological interplay that existed in that relationship over the course of about fifteen thousand years. --Elagi (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)