Talk:Red-necked falcon

Untitled

Look, Yamla, whomever you may be, you're REALLY starting to press my nerves. I AM the authoritative source on this bird, have spent more time with them in the wild than anyone else alive. YOUR edit is the inappropriate part, and we're about to get ugly.

Is this place about giving the world the information, or some egotist like you (who probably never had a falcon on his hand in his life) telling me about my specialty?

Please reread WP:CITE and WP:V. Also, WP:NOT. Original research from the accepted authoritative source on a subject is nevertheless inappropriate for the Wikipedia. --Yamla 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

IS this about KNOWLEDGE or some jeuvenile word game? No wonder Wikipedia has quickly lost all credibility with the academic world. It's not from the misinformation (which would quickly be caught and corrected) but from moronic, frustrating rules like this. You're not helping this be a fountain of knowledge, you're repressing the best sources, in favor of some very old and inaccurate garbage that has a bibliography cite. When I've published this, then some idiot who ALSO hever touched these birds can quote me, but I can't quote myself???

See also: oxymoron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falc (talk • contribs)

Yet again, I direct you to WP:NOR which covers this in great detail. If you believe that original research should be accepted into Wikipedia articles, you are welcome to try to change this, one of our core policies. However, this particular article is not the right venue. Once you have built consensus to change the policy, then you can add your original research here. --Yamla 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Further info on the subject

I wonder if those who research this bird at some future date will be pleased or annoyed by your vigil. My guess is that they'll be frustrated by that they could have gotten first-hand info from a master falconer who trapped them and manned them and took close-up pictures, but they were denied that opportunity by a zealot and a policy that is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

This is in the Discussion page, so I'm assuming I can't be sanctioned for the expression. --JT 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Yamla was absolutely right in this case; if editors are allowed to put original research in articles, anybody could put in absolutely anything they like (including complete rubbish) without having to prove that what they say is correct. (And yes, I know this happens everyday on Wikipedia; that's my point.) This is certainly not to say that what Falc added was rubbish; he may indeed be a very authoritative source (anonymity means we can't know for sure). If so, he should publish some of that knowledge somewhere (other than Wikipedia) so the rest of us could have access to it, and could cite it here—thereby improving the article as he wanted to do! MeegsC | Talk 11:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:OWN is also a policy to be carefully read. A world authority has no more right to assert control of an article than a newbie. Publish if you want to assert verifiability. Jimfbleak 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Publish if you want to assert verifiability"? Jim, *I* don't give a flying fuck one way or the other. *I* am not suffering from the inaccuracies. You and your readers are. So how about you guys start pursuing TRUTH and FACT instead of "verifiability" by quoting what some twit got put to ink? I've been published many times over the years. That does NOTHING to make it accurate or true, "Gospel". It's sad that this great Wikipedia is willing to keep inaccurate tripe rather than pursue truth and fact. I don't care to argue your methods. I KNOW that in this case (and if there is this one, there are likely others) false information is being spread as truth, because these "rules" don't allow the data or reports to be challenged. Some guy puts out a "Birds of West Africa" book, spots a couple of them over the timeframe, and makes statements, and that's Verifiable, but my months in the field with them, a much closer and more detailed study, is less valid because a commercial house put out his book? Nonsense. JT (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Time goes by...

and this pathetic stub continues to cite inaccurate nonsense because your inane rules preclude knowledge and fact.

The birds I brought back have now been alive and producing young for 3 years. Where are your higher authorities? What makes some publishing house being willing to invest in a book (or a paper being published) any more valid or accurate? The FACTS disagree with information in here. That's first-position proof that YOUR version of this doesn't work. But you don't need that much to realize that Academia often has its head too far up in the clouds to see reality. JT (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's start with these points, my comments in ALL CAPS below:

The Red-necked Falcon or Red-headed Merlin (Falco chicquera) is a bird of prey in the falcon family. This bird is a widespread resident in India and adjacent regions as well as sub-Saharan Africa. It is sometimes called Turumti locally. *IN WHICH LOCALITY? INDIA/PAKISTAN, W.AFRICA, OR S.AFRICA?*

The Red-necked Falcon is a medium-sized, long-winged species with a bright rufous crown and nape. It is on average 30–36 cm in length with a wingspan of 85 cm. The sexes are similar except in size: males are smaller as females as is usual *ALWAYS, NOT USUAL, IN ALL RAPTORS* in falcons. Young birds are buff below with less extensive barring and duller upper plumage.

The adult of the African subspecies Falco chicquera ruficollis has a white face apart from black moustachial stripes. The upperparts are pale grey, with black primary wing feathers and tail tip. The underparts are white with dark barring on the underwings, lower breast, belly and undertail. There is a buff foreneck band. The legs and eyering are yellow. The voice of this species is a shrill kek-kek-kek. *THIS IS ALSO INACCURATE. W. AFRICAN _ADULTS_ ARE NOT THE SAME AS S.AFRICANS, WHICH ARE NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THE PAKISTANI SUBSPECIES.*

West African males are known to weigh between 139 and 178 grams, while females are found between 190 and 305 grams. The particularly large African birds from south of the Zambezi River are often separated as subspecies Falco chicquera horsbrughi, but the size variation may be clinal and the latter subspecies not valid. *THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BIRDS ARE OF SIMILAR SIZE. THE WEST-AFRICAN BIRDS ARE SMALLER... AS IS TO BE EXPECTED, SINCE THEY DON'T HAVE TO ENDURE THE COLDER WINTERS THAT THE OTHER TWO EXTREMITIES EXPERIENCE.*

The Asian nominate subspecies Falco chicquera chicquera has rufous moustachial stripes, lacks the buff breast band, and is less extensively barred than the African subspecies.

The Red-necked Falcon is of unclear relationships. While it is sometimes allied with the Merlin or the African Hobby, this is most probably not correct. *TRUE, BUT WHERE IS YOUR CITE?* It might actually be distantly related to the Peregrine Falcon *IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE DISTANTLY RELATED TO THE BARBARY OR THE LANNER, BOTH MORE LIKELY THAN THE PEREGRINE. THE STATEMENT IS FRIVOLOUS* but much more study is needed to resolve this problem *WHAT PROBLEM? IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, IT'S A QUESTION*. In any case, the African and Indian forms are very distinct and have probably been separated for a long time; CITE? THE FACTS DON'T SUGGEST THAT. FACTS ARE THAT THE WEST AFRICAN POPULATION WAS SEPARATED FROM THE OTHERS LONG AGO, BUT THE NORTHERN (PAKISTANI) AND SOUTHERN (S.AFRICAN) ARE NEARLY THE SAME BIRD, AND LIKELY FOLLOWED THE SAME MIGRATORY PATH AS THE REST OF THE BIRDS, ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE OF AFRICA, WHICH IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED FLYWAY.* they might be considered distinct species.

The Red-necked Falcon is found in semi-desert, savannah and other dry open country with some trees, but also riverine forest. It often perches hidden in the crown of a Borassus palm (Borassus aethiopium), and chases birds, bats and large insects with a fast dashing flight. It is most active at dawn and dusk, CITE? hunting below the tree canopy.CITE? It often hunts in pairs, sometimes utilizing a technique in which one of the pair flies low and flushes up small birds while the other follows higher up and seizes the prey as it rises from cover.

This falcon reuses the old tree nests of corvids, or lays its 3-5 eggs in the debris in the crown of a palm tree. *ALSO RUBBISH, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE PROOF THAT ANYONE WAS UP 60-100 FEET IN ONE OF THOSE PALMS TO LOOK INTO THE CROWN OF IT, SINCE IT'S BY FAR THE TALLEST THING AROUND. THEY DON'T NEST IN THE CROWN, THEY NEST WITHIN THE FRONDS BENEATH, WHERE THERE IS PROTECTION FROM THE ELEMENTS. THEY WOULD COOK IN NO TIME IF THEY WERE TO LAY THEIR EGGS IN THE CROWN... EVEN IF THE GROWTH AT THE CROWN DIDN'T DISPLACE THE NEST. * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falc (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

References

File:Redneckedfalcon8nd.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Redneckedfalcon8nd.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WHO initiated this Speedy Deletion? I see no signature. JT (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Yes, me again. After all, I'm invested in these birds, unlike the rest of you, who only seem to care about protocol, not truth or knowledge. JT (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Subspecies description

Falco chicquera ruficollis photograph in the taxobox doesn't seem to match the text description on the page. The photograph is from Etosha National Park, which is south of the Zambezi. Any ideas? -- ~y (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You're missing an entire distinct and separate subspecies. I tried to tell you more about them a decade ago. I have good sound ecological reasons not to publish, and ample proof of my qualifications, but the restrictive methodology leaves this publication's integrity questionable. all you armchair, experts were interested in doing was deleting thl information from the only qualified person with real world extensive and hands-on research and knowledge of the species, and especially the aforementioned subspecies.

if any of you are seriously interested in knowledge and truth, rather than bureaucratic message to stifle sharing actual knowledge, younare welcome to contact me privately. JT (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)