Talk:Philippine eagle

Birds Mid‑importance

Philippine eagle is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Relationship with humans

Can somebody improve the "Relationship With Humans" section? I am not sure what the author meant. Is it about the way captive Philippine Eagles imprint their caretakers as surrogate mates? That would be an interesting section. The current one talks only about presidential proclamations, certainly not about relationship with humans.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneWithTheDeerOnIt (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This bird is not Critically endangered. They have improved since last time which only had about less then 100 but now it's like alot now. Also, about changing the name, it should be Philippine Eagle since it can only be found in the Philippines! If it's some where in another countries I will accept in changing it but since you can only find it in parts of Philippines then I believe people can and should call it Philippine Eagle!

Also about that carabao you are talking about. Obviously we can't call Water buffalo our own name for it because you can find water buffalos in other parts of asia. We can't call it ours not like the Philippine Eagle which is only found in the Philippines. Same goes for SAMPAGUITA. You can find that flower in other countries so we can't own it by naming it the official name as SAMPAGUITA for everyone!

If you are complaining that we shouldn't name it as an english word then I believe you should call it Haring Ibon or Haribon instead if you don't like it being called by an english name like Philippine Eagle.

It's not going to really make much difference what they call it since the bird is headed for extinction anyway, in the Philippines. Maybe you should work harder trying to save it, instead of getting in a twist about the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:A023:5555:C13D:C6C7:F594:AF59 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

210.185.184.98 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Well, i may be not the best person to tell about the Haribon. But I beg to disagree with calling it the Philippine Eagle. There is no English common name for this bird. The term Philippine Eagle is nothing but an invention. I believe that as the English speaknig world accepted to use the word 'CONDOR' (from Quechua) rather than 'HAWK', they begin to accept the natinve name we gave to our national bird.[reply]

After all, unlike the 'CARABAO', there is no other country in the world that claims the 'HARIBON' to be a symbol of their national pride. If someone argues that the 'HARIBON' has an existing English name, I suggest that we change the name of 'SAMPAGUITA' into 'ARABIC JASMINE'. Well, that is just a reaction. Thank you. NASUGBU BATANGAS 210.185.184.98 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always known and heard it as "Philippine Eagle". And I think it is the widely known name for it. So I vote we keep it that way 192.146.101.24 07:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "this country" at the end of Unique Evolutionary History? I presume it means the Philippenes but it is not clear at first glance. It could potentially be interpreted as the country in which the writer is situated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyo1505 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clearly talking about the Country - Philippines, for it's obvious, the eagle specie aa named "Philippine eagle." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.49.198 (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-plagiarism

The 'unique evoltutionary history' section really needs paraphrasing. It is mostly an exact copy of the cited source, and is, like the source, poorly written. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already paraphrased the section.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed

I think this article has some copyright violations (using write ups from other websites) and there are WP:POV issues. Kleomarlo (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To-Do List

-synonyms? -Description- 2 refs -expand Diet? -Drink? -Conservation checkthrough -more R w. humans Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests March 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: file deleted from commons. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippine Eagle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Philippine Eagle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests March 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: file deleted from commons. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Range

Has the range of this Eagle contracted as it has become rarer? If so, what are the areas where it used to live? Snowman (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard morphometrics

Other than measurements meant to claim largest, longest and other superlatives, there seem to be no standard morphometrics for wing bill etc. These need to be filled in with proper referencing. An old source for a few measurements below, others have been added to the article. Shyamal (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McGregor, Richard C. (1907). "Notes on specimens of the monkey-eating eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi Grant) from Mindanao and Luzon". The Philippine Journal of Science. 2 (1): 297.

A small warning: Just because someone published a standard does not necessarily mean it is followed by everybody or even the majority. A relatively well known (in ornithological circles) example is wing chord, where min., max. and over curve all are in use, and, at least among some US ornithologists, chord that has been flattened. A second problem is that some measurements can differ quite significantly depending on them being taken from live birds or long-dead specimens (see e.g., Prater, Marchant, & Vuorinen (1977). Identification and ageing of Holarctic waders. BTO Guide 17, Tring.). Consequently, if making direct comparisons based on measurements in different sources, it is quite important to check what standards the sources follow to see if they are directly comparable. At least more recent sources at higher levels usually mentions what standard they follow, either in the intro if a book, or in the methods section if a scientific paper. • Rabo³ • 12:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a "Standard" way of measurement to follow as a general rule in obtaining the specimens measurement or a consensus among Biologist, Ornithologist, scientist and experts etc. to consider that the manner of measurement is correct or acceptable to all? IF there is none existing which one is to follow as "Standard" the British ornithologist or U.S. Ornithologist or other Ornithological organization?

I think IF the result of the measurements is significantly huge as compared to the other specimen used in a experiment for example an eagles tarsi which is one of the easiest body part for any Biologist to take measurement which is directly comparable.

Tarsus (Foot length) 1. Haring Ibon = 145 mm 2. Harpy Eagle = 121.25 mm 3. Kenyan Eagle = 115 mm 4. Golden Eagle = 110 mm 5. American Bald Eagle = 95 mm

Source:link

Isn't it that this kind of results is conclusive enough to consider that you could actually use superlative adjectives like "Longest"? BTW I like the latest version you did to the Philippine eagles description rest a sure that I wont make any changes to it. Informaticz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Any basic ornithology text (eg: Gill) covers the measurements that are prescribed. Although it would appear to be very simple, there are problems when you look at specimens in the field or in the lab. (Depending on species there can be situations where one is confused whether to measure the outer edge, the inner edge, the longest feather, the middle feather, the last scale or the bend and so on. This is a cause of considerable variation, especially in the past (where hunters and others needed to make claims of having shot the biggest specimen etc. tiger skins for instance would be stretched between pegs to enhance results) and very often researchers are forced to go back to specimens to recheck published measures and then they are forced to use measures that show lower variability due to shrinkage or variability caused by method followed. The short answer is that there are published standards methods and published results based on a range of specimens and these are what Wikipedia policy supports apart from being the essence of scientific communication, otherwise we would just have to quarrel endlessly based on personal opinion. Shyamal (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web of Science search

Okay, let's see what's out there....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Title: Spizaetus hawk-eagles as predators of arboreal colobines Author(s): Fam SD, Nijman V Source: PRIMATES Volume: 52 Issue: 2 Pages: 105-110 Published: APR 2011 Times Cited: 0

2. Title: DNA barcodes of Philippine accipitrids Author(s): Ong PS, Luczon AU, Quilang JP, et al. Source: MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES Volume: 11 Issue: 2 Pages: 245-254 Published: MAR 2011 Times Cited: 0

3. Title: Convergent evolution and paraphyly of the hawk-eagles of the genus Spizaetus (Aves, Accipitridae) - phylogenetic analyses based on mitochondrial markers Author(s): Haring E, Kvaloy K, Gjershaug JO, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGICAL SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTIONARY RESEARCH Volume: 45 Issue: 4 Pages: 353-365 Published: NOV 2007 Times Cited: 4

4. Title: A modified bal-chatri to capture Great Philippine Eagles for radiotelemetry Author(s): Miranda HC, Ibanez JC Source: JOURNAL OF RAPTOR RESEARCH Volume: 40 Issue: 3 Pages: 235-237 Published: SEP 2006 Times Cited: 0

5. Title: Notes on the breeding behavior of a Philippine Eagle pair at Mount Sinaka, Central Mindanao Author(s): Ibanez JC, Miranda HC, Balaquit-Ibanez G, et al. Source: WILSON BULLETIN Volume: 115 Issue: 3 Pages: 333-336 Published: SEP 2003 Times Cited: 1

6. Title: Distribution and nesting density of the Philippine Eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi on Mindanao Island, Philippines: what do we know after 100 years? Author(s): Bueser GLL, Bueser KG, Afan DS, et al. Source: IBIS Volume: 145 Issue: 1 Pages: 130-135 Published: JAN 2003 Times Cited: 4

7. Title: Summary of Philippine Eagle reproductive success, 1978-98 Author(s): Miranda HC, Salvador DI, Ibanez JC, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF RAPTOR RESEARCH Volume: 34 Issue: 1 Pages: 37-41 Published: MAR 2000 Times Cited: 4

8. Title: Redescription of Phagicola pithecophagicola Faust, 1920 (Digenea : Heterophyidae), the type species of Phagicola Faust 1920 Author(s): Scholz T Source: JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY Volume: 85 Issue: 1 Pages: 111-114 Published: FEB 1999 Times Cited: 0

Largest?

There is a claim this eagle is largest by both size and wing span, there are mentions of 2 other heavier eagles. The Wedge Tailed eagle is also listed on Wikipedia as being longer than this eagle by about 4cm.

I guess i am suggesting that perhaps the statement about size should be cut back and remove the claim about length. (Unless of course someone can actually back up the claims of the true 'longest' eagle)... Alex m baker (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff about "diplomacy" eagles

@Kurt247: please do not add further irrelevant chitchat about that eagle pair to the page, or restore the removed section. Not only is this stuff not referenced to reliable sources, but even if it were, this article is not the place to document cutesy "slice of life" factoids about celebrity birds. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip blog. The material already present under Philippine_eagle#Philippine_Eagle_Diplomacy is quite sufficient. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurt247: a) WP:BRDD. Stop edit-warring. b) WP:UNSOURCED. Stop adding unsourced material. Discuss here or get reported. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurt247: keeping this here (and here's a novel concept for you to ponder: Time zone).

No, not "happy". Thanks for finally doing the absolute minimum of stating the source, but this is still unnecessary fluff that has no place in an encyclopedic article. Since you appear to be the kind of person who will mutely edit-war until finally blocked, let me rather elevate this to the "developing consensus" stage by asking recent-ish identifiable contributors to this page for their opinion: @PauAmma, Arjayay, CV9933, and Epaulette shark fan: --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae wow thats alot of words

rock music plays for a bit*

too bad i aint reading 'em

(for serious, thanks for slapping me back to reality to realize that this is the worlds largest encyclopedia that literally almost every student has cited in their sources and almost everyone has contact for) Kurt247 (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

atleast heard of*

Kurt247 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

remove: frankly, this addition looks like celeb press speculation, and I don't think digging an encyclopedic-tone nugget out of it would be worth the effort and aggravation, if even possible. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elmidae, a short paragraph is sufficient. Kurt247 please don't expand that section any further because it is drifting away from the main article subject, see WP:UNDUE also a timely reminder WP:CIVIL is policy so please pay attention. CV9933 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Based on these comments, I shall remove the newly added fluff about the eagles's personal habits and quirks, and cut it back down to a brief encyclopedic summary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]