Talk:White cockatoo

Untitled

Accurate weights of pet umbrella cockatoo birds are needed - must know if they are male of female and their age.

• • about 800gms. Sexing of the birds should be done through DNA. Still not 100% accurate but that's your best bet..

I could get some close up pictures of an umbrella cockatoo. How, do I send them?

Is there any evidence about how long umbrella cockatoos can live?

• • Up to about 70 years. If you adopt one from a rescue - know that this is an animal you have for LIFE.

Aviculture WikiProject proposal

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture. The purpose of this project is to help increase the amount and quality of content related to aviculture on wikipedia, and to maintain and organise articles relating to the subject, eventually bringing as many as possible up to good- or featured-article status. Snowman 16:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

excessive talking umbrella cockatoo

my 6 year old umbrella talks excessively.I've only had him under 2 months, but he talks like a human, some things he says I have to get him to repeat himself quite a few times. I read everything I can on his breed, it says a max of 100 words, he speaks over 200 words and he isn't stopping anytime soon, could it be that I let him walk throughout the house,doesn't sleep in his cage all the time(he likes to sleep with me,goes outside in yard and rides in vehicle sits at table with me and friends. When I got him he was in a cage for 4 years, now he laughs alot has stopped biting me and we're working on tricks without books to help me. Is he too spoiled? He's so happy and fun loving but not a morning person. Things I've read says what I'm doing isn't right, if this is true "what is the right thing?" His name is Evan and he calls me momma. It took me over a month for the two of us to trust each other wholeheartedly but we've bonded and I'm loving every moment of it,oh he also loves riding in the golf cart, singing,dancing, showing off, I find this is by far the best new family member I have ever had. He also barks like a big and small dog crows like a rooster and calls everyone by name, even tells me when he wants to be loved on. People say it isn't normal but what is normal?

 sincerly,
  Yvette Hebert  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.110.127 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 

This isn't a forum, thanks. 12.107.188.5 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ProFauna

I've removed UN-verifiable and opinion-based comments from this article. It seems the organization "ProFauna" (is a animal protection charity in Indonesia) has been editing this article with extremely biased information regarding supposed "illegal pet trade". Not one "fact" is verifiable and there are no footnotes or citations to prove otherwise. Personal observations are not allowed on WikiPedia unless one is highly qualified and well-known and/or published with said observations. ProFauna should know that I will continue to monitor this and other Wiki articles and edit them appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.134.93 (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removal. The text you deleted reads to me as an opinion piece and somewhat of a rant against the Indonesian and Philippine authorities. Without reliable sources, there's no way that it belongs in the article in any form. I think that a mention of trapping for the cage bird trade should remain in some form or other (U2s are worth a fortune and I'd honestly be amazed if birds weren't been taken from the wild in their natural range), however - as this clearly does occur and is a threat to the species. I'll try to find a good ref... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the agreement. I note additional references to "cage bird trade", cited to BirdLife International. Please note the figures of #'s of captured birds are from 1991 and are VERY out-dated. Further the Indonesian gov't banned capture in 1999 (12 years ago). Capture for "cage bird trade" is nearly non-existant in 2011. There simply isn't a market (at least in major countries). Here's the rub... it's nearly impossible to find references to prove that wild capture for "cage bird trade" has nearly been eradicated - "animal rights" activist websites and false information has overshadowed the truth.. and let's face it - news and "activist" sites feed off of drama.

I wonder if you could edit your additions to point out the age of the reference? Unfortunately I don't have the time nor the Wiki "formatting" ability to properly add any references to the reduction of wild capture. Logic, however, says that there's no NEED for it anymore. There's 1000's of parrot breeders all over the world, and the prices are reasonable enough that it's MORE EXPENSIVE to illegally import these birds. Further, most countries have made it illegal to IMPORT, which has significantly reduced the demand of wild-caught birds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.134.93 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the Indonesian govt. banning capture of this species in 1999 - I've read the BLI source and I'm unsure as to whether to interpret it as 'the Indonesian govt. made it illegal to capture this species in 1999' or 'the Indonesian govt. allowed no U2s to be taken from the wild in 1999' - as it goes on to mention trapping quotas later in the article, speaking as though there still *are* trapping quotas. Maybe one of the other parrot guys here can chime in on this? It does state that 'Annual harvests have declined in actual terms and as a proportion of the remaining population in recent years' (I missed that when I read the page yesterday) - and I'll certainly incorporate that into the WP article. I agree that there is no place for animal rights propaganda in Wikipedia, but on the other hand, we don't want to use sources that spin the figures too far the other way either (impossible to know until I see what you're basing your statements off). Do you have any links to sources further discussing the reduction of wild capture of the U2? If they meet WP's definition of reliable sources, I'll be happy to see what I can do about incorporating information from those too... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much Kurt... and unfortunately as mentioned there's not really any articles out there saying "oh look we don't do this anymore"... at least none that would meet the Standards. Think of it this way - the animal rights activists (at least the ones that have the agenda to stop all of the "pet trade" completely) are much better at inserting their "facts" into the mainstream media, etc. Frankly, there's simply no organizations out there that exist to promote the fact that illegal trapping has been reduced- there's no money or fame in promoting that, unlike the "activist" side of the argument.... I appreciate that you'll add the newer info that you found. And I totally agree that the article shouldn't be swayed the other way... I would just like to see a fair representation.

This is what I know, but I can't "prove" it to Wiki's standards-- but this is generally accepted in other forums---- it's not the laws of Indonesia (or any other country that has parrots as an indigenous species) that is causing illegal trapping to stop - it's the reduction in DEMAND for said birds - first of all, today we can get almost every species of parrot from reputable breeders, legally, and at a fraction of the cost of what it would take to get a bird imported. Secondly, the laws of the 'receiving' countries are very strict, so there's been a huge reduction of places for the illegally trapped birds to go.

I truly wish I had the ability to find verifiable articles that are more up-to-date... and I do wonder whether 20 year old data is still "verifiable" or if so, if it's "reliable" enough to leave in the article? In other words, does the data stand on its own as reliable info, being that it's 20 years old? Logic says no... I don't feel comfortable removing the info you put in there, but I do feel that it's 20 years old and even without "verifiable" counter-information, logic says it's out-dated and that gives some reason to remove it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.134.93 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

this 2006 paper may be relevant to the subject - it was carried out by TRAFFIC. It states that the illegal bird trade in Indonesia is apparently still widespread, much of it for the *domestic* market and includes species that are protected by law. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting... it supports my thought that "exporting" is greatly reduced or non-existant. Specific to THIS article, there were 104 White Cockatoos over a 5-year period. I had a hard time understanding the "quota" portion, but it seems like 21 White Cockatoos per year would be under any reasonable quota... and frankly it is newer information AND seems to be from a slightly less-biased source than BirdLife International. May I suggest removing the "18 times" reference and replacing it with actual figures of 104 in 5 years? Also, the "18 times" is misleading without knowing the actual quota numbers. Thank you so much for the help in this- I simply am not knowledable enough to correctly format and cite these facts and since this is the only article that truly interests me enough to want to have input, it seems futile to learn all the "rules" for 1 or 2 simple edits. Your work is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.134.93 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that trade is "limited" has clearly never been to Indonesia. It is quite remarkable that they can find that many White Cockatoos in Medan, far off the trading route for Moluccan species, which almost entirely moves through the large cities in Java (Jakarta+Surabaya) and the Philippines (due to geography, there has always been extensive trade between the Moluccas and the Philippines). There is also plenty of international trade, but with the strengthening of European and North American legislations, combined with the economic growth in east Asia, the vast majority remain in the region (e.g., Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, China). A bit here; in N. Halmahera alone, 200+ caught in 2007. So, although I agree entirely with the removal of the vast majority here since it needed references, it seems clear that the main purpose of this edit was to remove all about illegal trade representing a threat. Removing some unsupported sections that (evidently) are opposed to ones view, while leaving equally unsupported sections that supports ones view is an unusual approach, especially when the same user complains about biassed and unsupported information in the first comment in this discussion (and here, too)! A significant point here is if ProFauna, to my knowledge the only organization that has conducted surveys for this species in recent years, counts as a reliable source (of course, if reliable, citations are necessary). I have seen nothing that suggest they are unreliable, but if anyone can point to info that suggests they are it would be interesting to see it. For example, BirdLife International, which maintain all IUCN ratings for birds, use them ([1], [2], [3], etc). • Rabo³ • 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over Rabo (I pinged the people of WP:BIRDS last night to solicit their input on this issue) Is BirdLife International in any way a biased source (as 184. suggests above), just for the record? I'd always considered them to be impartial and reliable with no particular 'anti birdkeeping' or 'anti <country of your choice>' bias. I'd be interested in hearing why 184. thinks that this is the case... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to find a less biassed conservation organisation than BirdLife International, and they are also among the ones with the highest standards for documentation (criteria here). It's no coincidence that the IUCN exclusively uses them to rate birds, and IUCN ratings are used in the taxobox of every single bird species article on wiki (as well as all mammal species articles and other animals+plants that have been rated by the IUCN). But really, this is fairly simple: If anyone believes that there is no threat from the trade in wild-caught White Cockatoos, that person should provide a reference that supports that claim, and for such a reference (if it exists) and its info to have a prominent position in the article, it should be equal/superior to the BirdLife International and ProFauna ref's (→WP:Balance). I note that IP 184.6.134.93 has questioned the reliability of several sources, but has yet to provide a single source that supports any of his claims. • Rabo³ • 17:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought this was the case. I should also point out that the figure from the TRAFFIC article of 104 Umbrella Cockatoos in 5 years refers to *three bird markets in a single city* - not in the entirety of Indonesia, which is how 184. seems to have interpreted it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk)

I do find it interesting that this anonymous IP is referring to BirdLife International as a "biased source". Since that is an extremely reputable scientific organization, I rather think we might question the aims and potential biases of this anonymous IP! MeegsC | Talk 20:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

My "goal" here is simply to make sure there is UP TO DATE and RELIABLE sources. Nobody can disagree that the statements made by ProFauna (which I removed) were extremely biased - and I'd venture to say that indicates their biased stance and therefore should exclude them from being cited in the future. Further research into BirdLife shows me they are, in fact, reliable.. HOWEVER, the data is still very outdated. The fact is, there's no easy-to-find up-to-date info available, but data nearly 20 years old has outlived its usefulness- even though that may be "all we have", it's still horribly out of date and should not be included here. The onus should not be on me, nor anyone else, to find "better" info, when the existing info is so out-of-date that its no longer reliable. In other words, the old info shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't matter whether we have "better" info to replace it with- the existence or lack of "better" info has nothing to do with it as the out-of-date info doesn't stand on its own.

Nobody is claiming the illegal bird trade no longer exists, however publicizing data that's nearly 20 years old is mis-informing the readers. Further, the previous non-qualified statements of illegal trapping would make the reader believe MOST (or many) White Cockatoos are "illegal". That would include birds in N. America, Europe, and other parts of the world... which is far from the case. The recent clarification of the offending countries is appreciated and should be more clear to the reader that the illegal trade is mainly local to the Philippines and the other locations now mentioned in the article.

I wear my heart on my sleeve - so in the interest of full disclosure, I own several parrots, including a White Cockatoo. I most certainly care about their conservation and the perpetuation of the species -and I have long championed EDUCATED efforts to eradicate it. However, there is a lot of misinformation out there and the way this article read previously was simply too "broad". As a responsible Cockatoo owner, who obtained my bird from legal sources, I'm tired of being challenged by people who have been mis-informed about the "illegality" of them- information that has been perpetuated (and has been referenced to me) on Wikipedia (and other places). Like it or not, people believe Wiki is the end-all of information, so when someone says, "oh you can't have that parrot, it was probably illegally trapped, I read it on Wikipedia" then it's clear that people have been misunderstanding the info provided here.

I'm fairly happy with the current state of the article in this section. I thank the contribs who have been involved! 184.6.134.93 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)jeremyg

I haven't had the chance to look into it yet but I do suspect that the majority of pet U2s in the western world born in (say) the last 10/15 years or so will have been captive bred - it seems to be a frequent complaint (anecdotal evidence - certainly don't put this in the article) from those who run animal shelters and re-home parrots that *too many* cockatoos are being bred nowadays, when there are so many older birds that require loving homes. Regardless, there's probably a statistic out there that we can quote in this area. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias issues

Why is this article getting constant revisions that remove any critical parts that have to do with illegal pet trade and issues with cockatoo aviculture? It's fairly well documented. Meanwhile, it has a large unsourced section about aviculture which isn't remotely encyclopedic. 77.163.99.113 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)