Talk:Ivory-billed woodpecker

Additional suggestions for improvements

Let me disclose upfront that I am the individual who had nine Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings in Louisiana in 2006 and 2008, including two that are supported by much stronger evidence than anyone else has managed to obtain during the past several decades. I obtained another video while working with Geoff Hill's group in Florida in 2007. I entered some of this information years ago, but it was removed. Someone claimed that those sightings should be lumped in with the many other sightings during the past several decades, but the sightings in Louisiana in 2006 were different from most other sightings in two respects. First, they were supported by a video that received a strong positive assessment from a qualified independent expert (Julie Zickefoose). Second, there was a series of high quality sightings and two auditory detections (including one in which there were two birds). Both of the Louisiana videos have now been published, and an analysis of the 2007 video has also been made available. The public should be aware of all of the relevant evidence (especially the strongest evidence). I recently reposted the information, and I would like to thank those who have been very helpful in reorganizing it. Overcupoak (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to publish WP:original research. Wikipedia only reflects what is stated in reliable, published sources. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between original research and relevant facts. The article discusses the fact that David Kulivan reported a sighting in the Pearl River in 1999 (and rightly so). That sighting was not original research, but it is a relevant fact. It was also a fact that I reported a series of sightings and obtained video evidence that received a positive assessment from an independent expert. Why is it that a claim of a sighting that was not supported by evidence was regarded as appropriate content but a series of sightings that are supported by evidence was not regarded as appropriate content? Overcupoak (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because you have to have somebody else listen to you make the claim, and then report it somewhere neutral, then you can cite that. You saying you saw it is original research, somebody else saying you saw it is a source.71.63.160.210 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

I have several suggestions for the improvement of this article. James Tanner (who surprisingly is not mentioned on this article outside of the refs) reported that during the incubation period the male incubated at night while the female foraged, and vice versa for the daytime (as reported by Phillip Hoose in The Race To Save the Lord God Bird (2004)

I would also link to the Macaulay Library's recording of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker [1] and add a photograph of a juvenile (Such as this one [2] ) Finally, I would add some sdditional information off of Cornell Lab of Ornithology's site: [3]. Shall I make these changes? Dysalatornis (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Having read Allen and Kellog (1937) Observations on the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker I would also add information on Courtship display, Nest cavity cavity size and placement, Vocalization, etc. Dysalatornis (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Wingman4l7 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Links

that link does not work. Kingturtle 07:20 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Which link? I added [4] and [5] and they both work? Dave.Dunford 15:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also adding [6] to the entry. --Mitsukai 17:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coelecanth?!

Don't know who wrote the blurb that's gone on the front page, but the Coelecanth was thought to have become extinct 65 million years ago ... nowhere near comparable to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker which was thought extinct for 51 years. Proto 13:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's not like we watched the Coelecanth go extinct. I mean, we knew almost exactly where the Ivory-billed Woodpecker ought to be, and couldn't find it for decades. -- Coneslayer 14:16, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

arkansas claims

the more i read the actual report claiming to have seen this bird in Arkansas, the more i doubt it as being a correct identification. Kingturtle 23:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the video and the stills from it? jimfbleak 04:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have seen the stills, but not the video in action. Kingturtle 09:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Lord God bird"

This species used to be known by the popular name of "Lord God bird", for the exclamation that someone would make upon seeing a bird of its striking appearance and great size.

The article on the Pileated Woodpecker offers a different explanation. A-giau 20:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Moreover, the 1991 edition of The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds lists "Lord-God" as one of the Other names of the Pileated, but does not list it as one of the Other names of the Ivory-billed. Interestingly, the reference book *does* list "Log-god" as one of the Other names of the Ivory-billed. Kingturtle 20:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conservation

I'd like to see some info on developments since the siting (as they happen). Are they going to try and save the habitat, in order to allow numbers of the woodpecker to rise? Will there be more sitings? Is there any danger of loads of people going looking for it, only to cause further damage to the area?

The land it was found on is already protected. Durova 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence

"One of the authors, who was kayaking in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Monroe County, Arkansas, on February 11, 2004, reported the sighting of an unusually large red-crested woodpecker on a website."

That sentence implies the woodpecker was sighted on a website.

Does it not make more sense as follows:

"One of the authors, who was kayaking in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Monroe County, Arkansas, on February 11, 2004, reported on a website the sighting of an unusually large red-crested woodpecker. Wayward 11:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Changed as recommended (not by me). Dave.Dunford 11:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Size comparison

IBW may be closer in size to a Northern Pintail than to a crow but I've got three objections to this change: (1) most non-specialists will have no idea how big a Northern Pintail is (or even what a Northern Pintail is) (2) it would be better to link to a bird of a similar shape and posture (this conjures up images for me of a swimming duck rotated through 90° and nailed to a tree!) and (3) I don't think a link to Northern Pintail is warranted (except for people who might click it to find out how big it is!!). I'll try to think of a bird that's familiar, yet close in size and shape. Dave.Dunford 11:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Changed back to "crow". Wikipedia gives the length of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker as 48-53cm, the Northern Pintail as 65-75 (though the authoritative Collins Bird Guide quotes 79-87cm for males), the American Crow as 39-49 and the Carrion Crow as 48-52. Carrion Crow (which is what most Europeans would understand by "crow") is the best match, but American Crow (which I guess it what most Americans would take "crow" to mean) is near enough (and closer than Pintail). Dave.Dunford 11:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that a Pintail doesn't sit in trees, so it isn't a useful comparison species. An I-b Wp is however larger than American Crow, so I'll suggest a change to "slightly larger than an American Crow" (with the latter linked) - MPF 19:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Given that the text says "about the size of..." (my italics) and the actual measurements of IBW are given, I think the sentence is OK as it is, and does its job in giving a reasonable impression for a layman of the size of the bird. But your suggestion is unobjectionable and I wouldn't revert if someone else feels it's better your way. Dave.Dunford 07:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This bird is larger than a Pileated Woodpecker, and that bird is visibly about the same size as an American Crow. A Raven is a closer size fit for the Ivory-billed.71.63.160.210 (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing it, I don't believe there's an explicit size comparison to anything but Imperial and Pileated Woodpeckers now. A Raven probably doesn't serve as good comparison as there's essentially no overlap in their historical ranges. But such a comparison is more the realm of field guides than encyclopaedias anyhow. WilyD 05:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"Lord God" bird

Tim Gallagher (The Grail Bird, Houghton Mifflin 2005, p. 18) writes: "Pileated woodpeckers were often known colloquially as 'Good God' bids, because that's what people said when they came across one. The ivory-bills, in contrast, were called 'Lord God' birds, because people who saw one were likely to exclaim, "Lord God, what a bird!" - jamesrsheehan

That sounds like a pretty dubious claim. Are you sure he's not trying to be humorous? I don't see any reason why people would consistantly exclaim "Good God" when looking at one bird and "Lord God" when looking at the other one. I would contend that most people who actually see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker would probably exclaim "Holy shit!" so maybe it should be called the Holy Shit Bird :) FWIW, there is a more plausable etymological explaination in the Pileated Woodpecker article, although no source for it. Kaldari 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the book and decide for yourself whether Gallagher is "trying to be humorous." The context was that he was repeating folklore that made the point that though people are (or were) impressed when they see (or saw) a pileated, they were much more impressed when they saw an ivory-billed. I think referring to the pileated as a "Lord God bird" is an error. Jamesrsheehan 21:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the claim could be reinsterted, but with the cavaet "According to birdwatching folklore..." or "According to writer Tim Gallagher...". I've also heard "Lord God Bird" attributed to Theodore Roosevelt, BTW. Kaldari 00:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Gallagher's assignment of folk names does not agree with other, older, sources that I can find. (This has been covered, partly, in another thread above, but it bears repeating.) The most exhaustive, readily accessible source of folk names for North American birds is John K. Terres's Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980). Terres (p. 1021) gives the following folk names for the Ivory-bill: Caip, Indian hen, ivory-bill, kate, kent (from call notes), king of the woodpeckers, logcock, log-god, southern giant woodpecker, white-billed woodpecker, woodchuck, woodcock. You will note that Lord God Bird is not actually on the list, though the closely related names logcock and log-god are--see notes on etymology below. James Tanner, in The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (New York: National Audubon Society, 1942) quotes a similar list collected by W.L. McAtee (unreferenced there), including Log-god and variants of Large Log-cock. (This to differentiate from the Pileated, the small log-cock?) T. Gilbert Pearson, in Birds of North America (New York: The University Society, 1917, reprinted 1936), gives just the folk names Woodcock, Logcock, Woodchuck, and Ivory-bill for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Note that the name Lord God Bird does not itself appear on three extensive lists of folk names for the Ivory-bill. However, the related name logcock does appear on some lists.

Terres (p. 1024) gives the following list of folk names for the Pileated Woodpecker: Black woodpecker, carpenter bird, cock-of-the-woods, good-god, great black woodpecker, Indian hen, logcock, log-guard, Lord-God, woodchuck, woodcock, wood kate'. T. Gilbert Pearson, in Birds of North America (New York: The University Society, 1917, reprinted 1936), gives a similar list of folk names for the Pileated, including Lord God Woodpecker. This on-line reference, quoting from from North American Bird Folknames and Names by James K. Sayre (1996), gives and exhaustive list of folk names for the Pileated, including Good God Woodpecker, ..., Logcock, Log-cock Woodchuck, Log-god, Lord God Woodpecker,...

Audubon, in the text from the Octavo edition of Birds of America (1840-1844), quoted folk names for the Pileated as woodcock and Logcock, see this site.

The application of the folk name Lord-God for the Pileated Woodpecker is also attested in popular literature predating Gallagher's work. See, for instance, this Birdchat message from the year 2000 discussing the use of that name for the Pileated in a novel about coastal Georgia, Eugenia Price's Where Shadows Go (1994). The quote from the frontspiece of the book is The Lord God Bird Loves St. Simons, and it is accompanied by a drawing of a Pileated Woodpecker. The author of the Birdchat message states that the name was widely used for the Pileated Woodpecker throughout the Southeastern United States.

A man who grew up in Louisiana during the 1950's wrote a letter to Discover Magazine in 2005 stating that Lord God Bird was a folk name applied to the Pileated Woodpecker in Louisiana in his youth. He also believes that name to be a corruption of logcock.

It is thought that the Lord-God names are corruptions of logcock--both the Pileated and the Ivorybill are, or were, sometimes found feeding on downed logs. (I have seen Pileateds do this.) An on-line reference to the etymology of Lord God is here, apparently, though the full text is not available on-line. The reference is: W. L. McAtee, Folk Etymology in North American Bird Names. American Speech, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1951), pp. 90-95. This apparently gives the derivation of lord god from logcock, or log guard for the Pileated by folk etymology. (Note the appearance on name lists of different stages of the transformation: logcock--> log guard--> log god--> Lord God.)

In summary: the folk name Lord God Bird for the Pileated Woodpecker is attested from several sources in the present day, and dating back at least to the beginning of the 20th century. The name is apparently derived by folk etymology from logcock, referring to the habits of this bird in feeding on downed logs. The name logcock for the Pileated goes back to Audubon's time, the early 19th century. The folk name Lord-God Bird does not show up on three lists of folk names for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker that I can find, though the related name logcock does. I can find no support for Tim Gallagher's assertion in The Grail Bird (2005) that the folk name Lord-God Bird referred consistently to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and the name Good God Bird to the Pileated Woodpecker. The application of Lord-God Bird to the Pileated Woodpecker is, if anything, more common than its application to the Ivory-billed. I feel the statement needs to be modified in the article. I'll try to write a concise section on the folk and scientific names, as I think I've done my homework.--Cotinis 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

John L. Trapp has done some extensive research on the use of the folk name Lord God Bird (see here and here) showing the application of that folk name to the Ivory-bill is, in general, quite recent, and that the term has historically been applied more commonly to the Pileated Woodpecker.Cotinis 10:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the 1921 publication,"Wild Life Resources of Louisiana Their Nature, Value and Protection" pp 99 M.L. Alexander, the Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Conservation, documents the name as the "log-god" bird. Growing-up in South Louisiana I had heard it referred to as the "log-god" since childhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.108.253.254 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A skeptic questions the neutral point of view of this article

Isn't one of Wikipedia's tenets neutral point of view? I think that this article deviates strongly from that principle. In the first sentence of the article, the bird is described as "extremely rare." I believe that "likely extinct" would better describe scientific opinion. Species aren't deemed "extinct" lightly, and when they are, it is done by overwhelming consensus. I would argue then, that the burden of proof for "rediscovery" is upon those arguing for it. And there is no consensus that they have made their case. The video is blurry at best.

My criticism is not restricted to the first sentence, but is pervasive throughout the article. The species is consistently referred to in the present tense - are they really still "feeding" on beetle larvae and "laying" clutches of eggs (???) - and controversy over continued existence is merely mentioned at the end of the article in a paragraph.

Granted, as a conservation ecologist, I, too, am optimistic for the future of this species. But this article doesn't appear to address the controversy or give much attention to scientifically valid skepticism.Pstevendactylus 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'optimistic,' Pstevendactylus. I would much love for the species to exist, but the evidence is being questioned pretty hard now. I changed the first paragraph consistent with your very valid concerns. 80.255.59.139[i.e., Mare Nostrum] 07:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

problem? someone is going to come along and say the exact oposite of what you say, and then eventually every one is going to forget that, and then someone is going to say what you say again... Jedi of redwall 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't that's applicable here, Jedi of redwall. We now have a balanced depiction of the debate, I think, which we can't get on either side of or we risk what you say. Mare Nostrum 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel this statement added 11 May 2006 is also violating the NPOV:

The failure of the expedition may have been due to the fact that the searchers were on foot. A solo searcher moving quietly in a kayak obtained video of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the Pearl in February 2006 [7].

The video is even more blurry than the famous (or infamous) Luneau video published in Science, in spring 2005. The inclusion of the statement that the video shows an Ivory-bill is a violation of NPOV. See discussion of current searches on the Pearl River, for instance, at Cyberthrush's blog--entry for Sunday, April 30, 2006, More Commentary From J. Jackson , and discussion here. --Cotinis 09:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this sentence and reference, and think at present the article is resonably balanced between the reports of rediscovery and skepticism. --Ithacagorges 20:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement that "The failure of the expedition may have been due to the fact that the searchers were on foot", etc., and the claimed video has been restored. What do others think? It seems silly to go back and forth, perhaps some compromise language can be reached. I'll try to insert something to that effect in the article, I suppose, but I feel this sort of thing belongs in the discussion until there is some factual resolution. --Cotinis 17:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For some perspective, the Ivory-Bill site run by Cornell and the Nature Conservancy, the team who has written the scientific articles giving evidence for its rediscovery, does not seem to mention the new Pearl video (or any new work in LA at all.) I have not seen any mention in any other scientific literature either or any commentary by major ornithologists supporting the find. Until the new video receives similar attention, I would lump it with the dozens or hundreds of reported but unconfirmed and unvalidated sightings throughout the years, and not worthy of specific mention in the article.

Possibly include something like this which I think is a more neutral summary of things: "More recently, searchers for the Ivory-bill have turned most of their attention away from the Pearl River region and Louisiana in general, although one uncornfirmed sighting was reported in 2006." --Ithacagorges 21:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rediscovery" or "Possible Rediscovery"?

Given that the rediscovery is still controversial, should we change the title of the "rediscovery" section to "possible rediscovery" or something similar? --Ithacagorges 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to make the same suggestion. --Cotinis 13:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the second largest

Actually, there are at least two larger woodpecker species, the largest, of course, being the Imperial Woodpecker; the second largest is the Great Slaty Woodpecker (Mulleripicus pulverulentus). This article suggest that the Ivory-billed may rank as low as the 5th, but it doesn't mention the candidates for the 3rd and 4th places.

GA nomination

This nomination is on hold for 7 days. These external jump links should turned into cite php footnotes. It is a nice article, though. Rlevse 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm in the process of fixing these. SP-KP 18:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Now only fix the two DOI refs and it should be good to go. Rlevse 19:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Done - I think - check these last two please, they proved tricky! SP-KP 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, if this were part of a wikiproject, I'd make it A-class. Rlevse 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any pictures available for The Druridge Bay curlew? The curlew article isn't in as nice a shape as the woodpecker one. You may want to spruce it up before someone grades it. Rlevse 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

More Pearl River video claims

I reverted a series of edits, all apparently by the same anonymous user (132.250.146.50), and done in a quick series, describing claims of a sighting on the Pearl River in February, 2006. The last edit was:

Since 2002, most of the attention in the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has turned away from the Pearl River region, although unconfirmed sightings were reported there in February 2006. A video taken at the Pearl River in February 2006 seems to show one ivory-billed Woodpecker climbing a branch, taking a short flight to another branch and then flying away. Short takes from this video can be seen here.

This issue has been discussed under A skeptic questions... (above), and it seemed to have been resolved in a neutral fashion. I do not feel that the purported February 2006 sightings rise to level of encyclopedic knowledge, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps this should be discussed here, since this seems to be an issue coming up over and over.--Cotinis 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, a bit of an edit war. I restored the heading to "Possible rediscovery" and restored some discussion of the controversy, which seems to be quite legitimate, since the dispute over the Arakansas sightings is not in dispute. Certainly some language could be inserted regarding the claimed 2006 Pearl River sightings that mentions them, but is neutral. Since it is possibly the author of that web site inserting the language, it seems to be somewhat of a violation of NPOV and verifiability, but I'm fairly new to this. (Is including a link to fishcrow.com appropriate, or not?) The controversy over the Arkansas sightings is handled in a very neutral fashion in the current edit, and I don't think it needs more push one way or the other. Probably sticking to print sources as opposed to blog links is a good idea. Opinions anyone?

Now, calling Jackson's article in The Auk an editorial versus an "article" is possibly a good idea--though I don't think it was called such in the journal. I'm trying to keep this balanced.--Cotinis 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Really trying to avoid an edit war, I suggest just having a link to the clips without commentary. Note that there is controversy about those video clips, as there is about the Luneau video. If the clip is going to be mentioned here in detail, NPOV would seem to require that other interpretations be detailed as well. See, for instance, Birdchat posting by Mike Collins Thu, 11 May 2006 describing the clips, and a skeptical, but respectful, response by another Birdchat participant on 12 May 2006. We have to watch out here for NPOV and also for "no original research", i.e., verifiability.

I did change the reference to Jackson's article to "commentary" instead of "paper". That seems to be more accurate, as "paper" might imply a research article, which that was not. --Cotinis 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Those who seem to take the content of this Wikipedia article so seriously might consider updating it (but please keep the discussion balanced) to include the third article to appear in a scientific journal since 2005 that reports multiple sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129: 1626 (2011)]. The article presents evidence from two videos that have received positive assessments from independent experts. These are only the second and third putative Ivory-billed Woodpecker videos to be published. The first video was obtained by David Luneau, who did not identify the bird in the field, and it does not contain a single isolated frame that one can claim unequivocally shows a bird. In contrast, the second video was obtained during the last of a series of five sightings (two of exceptional quality) over a five day period and shows a large woodpecker with several characteristics consistent with an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. The third video shows a bird that was identified in the field as an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and that has the distinctive flap style of a large woodpecker. An expert on the flight mechanics of woodpeckers (who extracted curves that describe the motion of the wingtips) is "confident the bird is a large woodpecker," but several characteristics rule out Pileated Woodpecker. It is puzzling why anyone would question whether it was appropriate to include a link to a website where this information was posted before it was published. These data are now published in a solid scientific journal. They are at least as strong as any other evidence that has been published and should be part of the debate. Reasonable minds might consider the fact that scientists working independently in three states have now reported multiple sightings, audio detections, and various forms of evidence. They should also consider the motives of some of the individuals who have stirred up the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.228.246 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sufjan Stevens song title

So far as I know, the correct title of the Sufjan Stevens song associated with this bird is actually, "The Great God Bird", rather than "The Lord God Bird" as recorded here. My copy of the MP3 d/l from NPR was entitled "Great God Bird", and that is certainly the dominant lyric in the song. If no one minds, I'll change it.Cravenmonket 16:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the NPR site referenced in the article and from which you can download the song refers to it as "The Lord God Bird," I'm going to change the title in the article back. Also, the mp3 I downloaded was untagged, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it was entitled anything. Battlekow 19:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed this

Recent Rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker At 1:15 pm, on February 27, 2004, after over 30 years of research and tracking down leads, Bobby Harrison of Huntsville, Alabama and Tim Gallagher of Freeville, New York, became the first two qualified observers in sixty years to see an ivory-billed woodpecker at the same time. Their discovery launched the largest, most intensive search ever undertaken for the ivory-billed woodpecker. The search was conducted by researchers from the Cornell University's Lab of Ornithology, in Ithaca, New York; The Nature Conservancy; Oakwood College, in Huntsville, Alabama; the University of Arkansas Little Rock; and other organizations and agencies. The ensuing search resulted in eighteen sightings, two videos, and sound recordings that proved conclusively that the ivory-billed woodpecker still lives in the bottomland swamps of eastern Arkansas. This iconic bird, a symbol of lost southern bayous and swamps, is now a symbol of hope for conservationists throughout the world. Efforts begun in the 1970s preserved vital habitat for the species, allowing it to survive. Major land acquisition and restoration efforts are currently underway to ensure the continued existence of this majestic species. Thanks to these efforts, the children of tomorrow may someday be able to experience the kind of southern swamp forest our earliest settlers enjoyed – swamps with massive, towering trees that harbor the magnificent ivory-billed woodpecker. This is considered to be the biggest victory for conservation in recent decades!

Totnesmartin 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that stuff is not referenced, and it is really too detailed--the 2004/05 claimed sightings are already described quite thoroughly in the article, and so is the controversy.

The article really needs some more work in the basic life-history sections--these are brief compared to all the coverage of the controversal recent sightings. --Cotinis 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 update needed?

Does anybody care to update this (in an agreeable, neutral way) to summarize the current (November 2007) status of the searches in Arkansas and in Florida? Cornell has published a full report on the 2005-06 search and a preliminary report on the 2006-07 search here. Updates from Florida are here There is also an interesting commentary by David Sibley (with references) on his blog. Also, the article sure could use some more basic life history information. I almost hate to suggest this, given past edit wars, but it seems like things have settled down a bit. --Cotinis 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• The article lacks inline cites practically everywhere. If the specie's very existence is challenged, then there need to be cites for it's description, and most definitely for the sitings.
• Lead sentence should be changed to something other than "is, or was..."

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be edited to scientific measurements first/only; imperial measures second, if necessary at all - MPF (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Delist

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of January 11, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.
Since the above issue of lacking inline cites has not been addressed, I have delisted the article for the time being. Corvus coronoides _talk 00:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My One of the Many Credible IBWO Sightings

I think something is missing from this article - a summary report from Cornell of the sightings reported to them, which they have solicited on their web site, from outside their organization.

I have about 15 years of birding experience, mostly in Maryland, USA. I have a PhD in Organic Chemistry, so the objective recording of observations is second nature for me. I was birding in Pine Bluff Regional Park, near the Delta Rivers Nature Center, SE of Black Dog Lake, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on 28 July 2005. I was using 10 power Nikon binoculars. I saw a large bird approach, flying about 25 to 35 meters above me, that appeared to be a Pileated Woodpecker (PIWO). I had planned a trip over the coming weekend to the Cache/White Rivers area, to look for an Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO, using the bird banders' coding convention), so I took the opportunity to study the underside of the woodpecker as it flew over, so I could distinguish it from an IBWO if I saw one at a later time. I have seen PIWOs hundred of times before, but rarely from underneath. The white on black underwing was striking - the rear half of the wing was white, and the rest of the underwing appeared black. After consulting my Sibley guide, and seeing that the front two-thirds of an PIWO underwing is white, and the rear one-third is black, I realized that I might have seen an IBWO, not a PIWO. I rushed back to my hotel room to get the Sibley supplementary page about the IBWO that I expected to use over the weekend, and realized that the underwing pattern was nearly a perfect match to what I had seen. The bird was heading northeast, toward the Cache/White Rivers area, about 50 miles away. It could easily have arrived there before nightfall, at the rate that it was flying. When I returned to the area about a week later, I found at least four tall tree stumps that had been stripped of their bark at the top; the trees were dead from a previous ice storm.

I reported my sighting to Cornell, using their very elaborate reporting format with 26 parts. I have not heard of or seen any mention of sightings from Cornell other than by their own teams. Could Cornell possibly admit that outsiders have had more success than they have? I guess not. I have heard of a number of credible non-Cornell IBWO sightings, but not from Cornell. Drbillellis (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

IUCN link

The link in the citation is broken. I looked up the status through the IUCN website, and found where the page is now [8], but I don't know how to put it in the citation. Cadwaladr (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now been fixed. First Light (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See comment below by expert cited, incompletely, in the article:

We are appreciative that so many in the science, conservation, and birding communities remain interested in Ivory-billed Woodpecker search and recovery efforts. We also appreciate the time that Rex Dalton has taken to cover this story from so many angles. It would be impossible in such a short article to fully describe all of the details and challenges of our work. That said, I want to take a moment to make a clarification regarding our preliminary results and conclusions. In the Nature article, I am quoted as saying "We don't believe a recoverable population of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers exists." This shortened version of my statement misses a key point, which is that we don't believe that recoverable populations of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers persist in those places throughout the species' range that have received significant, systematic search effort. It is possible that a small population of birds exists in heretofore unsearched or under-searched habitats.

Searching for ultra-rare species is a matter of estimating probabilities. It is impossible to prove that something you were looking for was not there just because you did not find it. The best we can do is to design and conduct our search efforts in such a way that allows us to estimate the probability that we should have found what we were looking for. The problem is, in many cases, it is nearly impossible to muster the high level of search effort required to say with statistical confidence that a given species no longer persists. Declaring that a species is extinct before all of the data are in, a phenomenon known as the Romeo error, has profound negative consequences. When a species is moved from the "critically endangered" list to the "presumed extinct" list, it loses protection from direct harm, and more importantly, habitat loss. It is important that we not give up on species based on an incomplete understanding. Decisions about extinction should be guided by science, not perception.

In 2011 the full results of searches for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker will be published in a technical book edited by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Ron Rohrbaugh, Cornell Lab of Ornithology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.186.255 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Help End the Debate

Wouldn't it help to show pictures of the distinct head, size, pattern and color comparisons of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker to the common Pileated Woodpecker in the article? --71.245.164.83 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see if File:PileatedIvoryWoodpecker.svg helps. Shyamal (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead photo

The lead photo appears to be of a decoy, not an actual specimen. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There's something odd about it, but Jerry A. Payne is a well known wildlife photographer it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It must be photo of a museum display or of an old painting or photo or the like. It's very misleading not to note it's not a recent photo of a living bird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.85.232 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It actually looks like a watercolor photo of a stuffed specimen. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But why would it be? The source is pretty credible. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Does the source claim it's live? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)}

I must have misread, I was replying to you mentioning watercolour, I thought you meant a painting. Seems like the photographer is still alive, and it's from a government site, so wouldn't be too hard to get in touch with them and ask I suppose. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are these actually the same photo!? Seems like the bottom one was just painted over, so it is indeed a live bird. I have flipped the colour one so it matches the original one. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to match them up in Photoshop, and it's perfect[9], apart from the head, which has been enlarged in the colour version for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL...how did that slip by all of us for so long?!? Mystery solved; thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, but it doesn't make sense that it is credited the way it is on the original website, very misleading, but I'll try to sort it out... FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent news (flaps radically different from the duck-like flaps that were expected)

To the main editors of this article:

You may find interesting the following news: Dr. Michael Collins publishes paper on ivory-billed woodpecker

Pmronchi (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lowery Photo

I have a hard time believing anyone has argued the Lowery photo is of a Pileated - a cursory examination of it makes it's obvious it's an Ivory-Billed. Stuffed? Could be. Anyone know any references? WilyD 16:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tense

As much as I hope that this bird has survived, it seems that the majority of the evidence indicates that it has not. So I think it's inappropriate to keep referring to the species in the present tense: "prefers swamps", "lays eggs"... I think the article should be written in the past tense--with the presumption the species is extinct--while also making very clear that there have been some recent, ambiguous, sighting. Ivan. --60.241.42.191 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the article needs to be kept in present tense as it is not officially extinct. Other articles on the possibly extinct species (White-eyed River Martin, Negros Fruit Dove, Sulu Bleeding-heart, Crested Shelduck) keep it in present tense until the IUCN/BirdLife International declare them as such. Is it extinct? Quite possibly, but the group that makes that determination hasn't switched it to extinct yet. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Extinct species should be referred to in the past tense. Ironically, the exhaustive Cornell surveys pretty well proved there is not an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in that part of Arkansas. There has been no unequivocal proof of the species' existence in the U.S. for more than half a century. At the very least, "is or was" should be used. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

copy edit Fsjgbdfhbhsbghbdfdjsbgjdb (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Worth saving expeditions stuff

As it stands, this article is more than 50% "Status", which is wackily unbalanced. In addition, large quantities of that are huge and probably unjustifiable quotes. I'm going to take a hack at rebalancing the article to be more about Ivory Bills and less about the 2002-2009 searches. Normally, I'd preserve the content that should be cut as a Searches for Ivory billed Woodpeckers article or the like, but the quotes make me think maybe that's not the best idea. If anybody's still watching, I'm keen to hear opinions. WilyD 13:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm hearing that nobody cares. WilyD 08:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There's way too much material on recent searches, especially in the lead section. Go ahead and cut it. Plantdrew (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the intro is also pretty egregious, but my inclination is to write the article first, then rework the intro. But I suppose it doesn't matter. WilyD 15:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Jackson 2004 "In Search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker"

Does anyone have access to this book (I don't, and don't really want to pay the €8 to buy one off amazon)? At the moment, I'm wondering what it says about the Neil Wright photos? The Recovery plans says he discusses them, and at the moment, the only sources I have on them are the Recovery plan, which say the Philadelphia Museum of Natural History received two photos purporting to show a female ivory-billed (purport typically implying a false assertion), Collins 1970 which says Wright showed him a photo of a male and a photo of a female that were good enough to constitute a photographic record, and scans of the photos from the Museum (which are compatible with showing an Ivory-billed in a nest hole, but of jank quality, but whether it's the scans, the photos, or both, that are of jank quality, I don't know). The mismatch on male and female could indicate the photos Collins saw aren't the same two the museum has, I'm not totally sure. So I'm keen to know what Jackson says about them. WilyD 08:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I broke down and bought the book (and only paid €4, since my wife was buying other stuff enough to get free shipping). But, more seriously, Snyder's 2007 "An Alternative Hypothesis for the Cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's Decline" - WorldCat says there's a single copy within a hundred miles of me, and it's at an appointment only specialty university library. Amazon tells me it's not available, and buying from the publisher would probably set me back in the neighbourhood of forty bucks (including shipping). Does anyone have access to this? I get the gyst from Hill's review, but the primary source seems very interesting ...

Post 1944 first pass

Okay, that's my first pass at post 1944 sightings. Obviously, there are way too many sightings (and many of dubious quality) to cover everything. I've tried to restrict myself to incidents where there's a scientific publication (Dennis & Big Thicket, Cornell in Cache River, The Two Florida Panhandle teams), where there's physical evidence whose providence I could follow (the Wright photos from Big Thicket, the Lowery Photos, the Agey & Heizmann feather + the sound recordings in the published papers, I guess), and those where land was protected so there was a real consequence (Chipola River, Big Thicket, Cache River). There's still a definite recentism bias (especially the Cornell paragraph is far too big - I'll try to keep cutting it down while hitting all the pertinent notes - that last bit tends to make me get verbose).

If I've missed any incidents that hit those marks, it could help with recentism (even if I'm still looking to shrink it). But really, only if there's reason to think it's of very good quality. The recovery plan mentions a feather from the 1980s from Appalachicola which "remains mysterious", so I'm thinking no. Ditto the photo from Georgia in the 1960s (unless we can confirm it exists and where, I think), and I think I've seen mentions of other cases where there's supposed to have been physical evidence, but not enough to go on. WilyD 12:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, these critically-endangered/extinct species can be tricky...I've been buffing orange-bellied parrot on and off over the years and it becomes fiddly where to draw the line between what to include and what not to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

So, the book "Wild echos" claim there's a photo from Apri 10, 1981 by Thomas Michot and David Hankla, working for the US Fish & Wildlife Service. I can't seem to find them online, but that's some detail that might help? And if they were working for the US government, photos could be Public Domain (have to see quality, of course). WilyD 07:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I remember hearing of a reported sighting sometime 1981-5 (I think 1984-5), but the only reference I'm finding is in a photo caption at Not Extinct?:

last sighted in the 1980s, Louisiana, USA

Not R (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Images and Infobox

So, this article has a lot of photos, many of which are decorative. I think the total number needs to come down - maybe a few less of the Singer track ones, and historical illustrations that are just for fun (other than Audubon, obviously). I also don't like the info-box image (the re-touching is odd and that makes me think it's not a good representation). I'd like to replace it with the Audubon painting, or maybe the Singer Tract photo with a good view of both the male and the female . If anyone has strong feelings, please voice them (and the more you don't, the BOLDER I'm gonna get ;) WilyD 15:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd go with the photo myself....we seem to elsewhere even if there is a really good paintingCas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The only free photos of live bids are those currently in the article, so there are no possible replacements for those. The most appropriate images for the infobox would be either photos of live bird or stuffed specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not looking to replace the images - there's already far too many, and almost all the photos and historical paintings are used in a decorative manner. I expect if I'm able to pull off a significant quality improvement here, the total number of images will go down, with only one added (a range map, which can either be made, or possible pulled from American Government sources as PD). Of course, given the currently disputed status of its existence, it's possible we could decide to make a fair use argument about the Field Lewis photo (certainly, my understanding was drastically changed by seeing the actual photo), but I haven't given that much thought.

Of course, the infobox image now is a weird hybrid (painting of a photo, basically), which it seems to me gives it the worst qualities of both. For birds in similar situations

Carolina Parakeet uses a taxidermied specimen (but in much better condition than any of the ones here)

Passenger Pigeon uses a black/white photo

Eskimo Curlew uses a fairly jank taxidermied specimen (but the only photo of a live bird is fair use'd).

Heath Hen uses b/w photo

Crested shelduck opts for lousy taxidermy over painting

Labrador Duck opts for taxidermy over art

Slender-billed curlew taxes taxidermy over art

There does seem to be a trend here. It's possible Audubon + Ivory-bills is so iconic that it merits an exception, but then let's go with the male+female photo for now, move the other photo with the nest hole up to nesting behaviour, I think WilyD 05:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Audobon was notorious for his particularly un-lifelike depictions, so I think that would be better under taxonomy or relationship with humans sections. What this article really needs is a rewrite and expansion, I think image use is of secondary importance. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If I can, I'd like to push the article to good, or even featured, status. I agree that'll involve expanding everything (except post 1944 searches, which needs massive condensing, even if I am expanding the 1944-2001 stuff at the moment), and probably significant rewrites. But I started with post-1944 searches because I felt the imbalance was the most glaring problems (and the massive quotes probably run afoul of fair use standards on Wikipedia). But I'm kinda finding it hard to work with all the images littering the article, so I want to pull a few of the more decorative ones to make space to work. WilyD 08:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The article certainly needs to pull the focus away from searches and sightings and towards the bird itself and its biology. I think the most relevant featured precedent would be passenger pigeon. I'd be happy to help out here, maybe just by looking over the article's progress. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Gallery

Just a gallery of decorative images I've pulled, so we can find 'em later if we want 'em

• 
  colourised photo from National Parks
• 
  Illustration of a male by Mark Catesby and George Edwards, 1754
• 
  Illustration from Key to North American Birds, 1903
• 
  Illustration from Brehm's Tierleben, 1880
• 
  Mounted male specimen in Carnegie Museum of Natural History
• 
  Mounted female specimen, Field Museum of Natural History
• Turnaround video of a male specimen, Naturalis Biodiversity Center

Size of article

Just noting that this version of article with two bits recently removed still in has 21 kb of readable prose. The maximum size of prose is generally around 50kb, so we are plenty under that. I'll try and take a look a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How're you getting readable prose? The total is near 50k; and large parts are still underserved - for instance, relation with humans has nothing on use as Native American trade item, nothing on Audubon, nothing on birders; every bit requires reworking, and other than post-1944 sightings, I think that'll entail expansion. Habitat, historical occurance, ... really, it's very skimpy elsewhere. WilyD 08:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Using the prosesize tool. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_Contest/Contents#Measuring_tool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - for context, I think there's a bit of a content dispute (although I'm not totally clear on the details). I don't think User:Cinclodes is very familiar with Wikipedia (and perhaps, has had a bit of a rough go when they've tried to be involved in the past), so I'm try to handle it non-bitingly (perhaps not entirely successfully). I don't think it's urgent to get it resolve - that section has been a mess for years. Taking a little time to sort it will still be a massive improvement. WilyD 11:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That section has been a mess, in part, because it has been modified by individuals who have, at best, a superficial knowledge of the topic. For example, you removed the discussion of the report by David Kulivan in 1999, which was arguably the most consequential report of the past several decades. It motivated others to get into the field to search for these birds, and his report ultimately led to the first report of this species by ornithologists in several decades and two other published reports by scientists. I acknowledge that you had good intentions for including my latest publications in a short paragraph about my contributions, but it was not accurate. For example, you mentioned that the analysis of the video was based on "flap speed." It was actually based on "flap rate," "flight speed," and several other factors that I included in a revision of that paragraph. There was no mention of two other videos, which contain stronger evidence than anything else that has been obtained during the past several decades. In modifying the paragraph, I added one sentence apiece for the other videos. It is not just my opinion that these videos contain strong evidence. They have been published in reputable journals (run by publishers such as Nature, Elsevier, the American Institute of Physics, and Taylor & Francis), they have received strong positive assessments from independent experts (Zickefoose and Tobalske) that appear in my papers, and they have been examined and found to be "very convincing" by Geoff Hill, an ornithologist who has observed this species and published a paper and book on it. My papers also provide insights into the double knocks and flights of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Two of the papers include an analysis of the expected waiting time for obtaining a clear photo, an issue that is central to the theme of that section. In making improvements to that paragraph, I briefly summarized all of this content by adding to a few sentences and introducing a few others. I also added two photos of my own. One of them is an improvement over the previous photo of the Pearl River. The other shows a type of flight that is consistent with historical accounts of the ivory-billed woodpecker and is a nice illustration of the field marks of that species and the pileated woodpecker. I feel that the length of that paragraph relative to the others in the section is proportional to the amount of original material in those five papers. I also feel that the revision is accurate, succinct, and neutral. I would very much prefer for others to work on this page, but, with the conservation of an iconic species at stake, it would be worthwhile to identify the most relevant facts and get them right.

Cinclodes (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yes, and I've indicated I'm happy to work on wording/phrasing/word choice. My first message to you was really intended to be a heads-up that as the section is too long (this is an article about ivory-billed woodpeckers, not post-1944 searches for ivory-billed woodpeckers), and so it might not be a good idea to invest a lot of effort in writing things that would ultimately end up on the cutting room floor. Partly, of course, not knowing how much you were intending to write.

Past that, I think there may be some collisions where your priorities (of course) don't perfectly align with the priorities of writing a Wikipedia article. But I don't think it's necessarily helpful to get into that until we have some kind of working understanding. Perhaps the same is true about getting into specific content points. WilyD 13:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have one additional point to make. In my most recent paper, Sec. 6 and the Appendix documents examples of the folly and politics that have undermined the conservation of the ivory-billed woodpecker. I didn't mention that material in revising the paragraph, but I actually regard that issue to be more important than the other issues discussed in that section. Unless the folly and politics are stopped, there will be no hope for the conservation of this species. I would encourage anyone who wishes to make a contribution to this topic to review that material and mention it. Anyone who wants to know about the ivory-billed woodpecker will be left uninformed unless they are made aware of this issue. I'm not saying that anyone who has contributed to the ivory-billed woodpecker is biased or had anything less than honorable intentions, but that page has contained bias. I would recommend reading the papers and judging by what has been peer reviewed rather than the many unsupported opinions that have been aired repeatedly by the critics. Those who are not willing to take the time to become familiar with the literature are really not qualified to contribute to this page. I may not be familiar with the culture at Wikipedia, but I don't see how high quality entries can be produced without researching the relevant facts.

Cinclodes (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Casliber: I'm not making an accusation, but the level of interest that WilyD has for this topic seems suspicious when one takes into account that he doesn't seem to know much about it. He has removed significant information and protested an informative and neutral contribution by someone who has published five papers on the topic. Maybe he has good intentions, but it is well known that politics has impacted this issue. So caution is merited for this topic, which is quite rich and has been featured on the cover of Science and in several books. For such a topic, I don't buy the argument that there is a need to cut back on a brief discussion of five papers that contain a significant collection of findings. This seems very suspicious. I would like to recommend that, under these circumstances, you try to find a neutral party to put the final touches on this page. A good starting point would be the version that I produced a few days ago. Am I biased? Well, I am an expert on the topic, but I believe my contribution was accurate and neutral. It simply describes the contents of the five papers. I think it would be fairly easy for a neutral party to compare the statements in the paragraph that I composed with the contents of the peer reviewed papers.

Cinclodes (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay - folks, sometimes these articles can get pretty large - this one is still alot smaller than kakapo for instance (which also has List of kakapo (!)). night parrot is surprisingly small, passenger pigeon significantly larger.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Casliber: Do you see any problems with the discussion that I introduced in the version that you cite above? If not, would you object to reverting to that version? Do you see a lack of neutrality in that version?

Cinclodes (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, looking at the last para of this version (that was subsequently removed - I'd be tempted to keep it as it gives some rationale and explanation concerning the history (and rarity) of sitings. The whole story of sitings since 1944 is notable, and this segment helps make the section less of a timeline. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Kulivan material removed, if it is that notable, someone will not doubt try to add later, so again I think I'd be leaving it in so we can have a properly formatted and concise note on the episode, rather than wait for some anonymous person to add with or without a reference. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"(like all others since 1944)" and "but nobody has proposed a plausible counterargument for any of the events in the videos" are argumentative and not NPOV.

"The ivory-billed woodpecker's history of elusiveness (multiple rediscoveries, no clear photo ever obtained without knowing the location of a nest, and many reports but no clear photo during the past several decades) is consistent with an analysis based on behavior and habitat that suggests the expected waiting time for obtaining a clear photo is several orders of magnitude greater than it would be for a more typical species of comparable rarity." - this is a general argument, and could be moved up to the first paragraph (and probably very slightly softened, since I'd say it's pretty obvious that isn't the universal opinion of all ornithologists)

The statement precisely describes the analysis in the paper. It makes no sense to "soften" such an analysis. I'm not going to waste any further time on this. Cinclodes (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a common alternative approach for when a result isn't universally accepted, to phrase it along the lines of "Such and such person/paper argued ..." you'll see it's quite common in what I've written, when results aren't universally accepted. It doesn't make sense to soften the analysis, but it makes sense to soften the phrasing in wikipedia, because those aren't the same thing. WilyD 11:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

An analysis based on the concept of a harmonic oscillator relates the double knocks of the ivory-billed woodpecker (and double/multiple knocks of other Campephilus woodpeckers) to the drumming that is typical of most woodpeckers.[49] - This sentence doesn't explain why it's there. It's possible something out of that paper goes into "Description", but now, that sentence tells me nothing about whether the ivory-billed woodpecker persisted past 1944, nor why anyone would think it did (or didn't). WilyD 06:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And, "These reports have been received with skepticism" is too strong (neither of our faults - it's a relic of the old version that was highly skeptical. It should read more like "These reports have received a mixed reception" or the like "variety of reactions", we could think about wordsmithing - some experts buy it, some don't, and Wikipedia's not in a position to sort it out until the field does. WilyD 06:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's anything I've written that you think is a problem, feel free to identify it. I'll freely confess I first became interested in the article when I noticed the sentence on the Lowery Photo said might be a misidentified Pileated, which seemed like an odd statement. So I sought out a copy, and could see it was obvious bunk. Which has stuck in my craw ever since. Seriously, go back and look at the article as it existed a month ago, before I started seriously editing it. It was written with a pretty obvious point of view that all the post 1944 evidence is unreliable rubbish. It's one of the founding principles of Wikipedia that it should be written in a way that you can't discern what the authors thin; not meaning that it's a 50-50 balance between competing positions, but that we reflect the literature - not exclusively the scientific or other academic literature - as it exists.

And really, if you want to avoid conflict, continually trying to slag me isn't going to help. Over all our discussions, the only thing I've written that you've mentioned was at all inaccurate what that I wrote flap speed rather than flap rate - which really, is a bit vague but not very different.

I could have pointed out several flaws in that paragraph, and I realize that some of them might have been introduced by others. The only logical interpretation of "flap speed" that I can think of would be "wingtip speed," which is very different from "flap rate." Two birds with the same flap rate could have totally different wingtip speeds. The fact that you used that term and didn't mention the other factors that were used in the analysis of the 2008 video and didn't mention anything about the 2006 and 2007 videos is an indication that you don't know the subject or have a substantial familiarity with the articles that discuss those videos. Nothing wrong with that. There are many topics that I don't know. For such topics, however, I wouldn't have the audacity to try to take over a Wikipedia page and over-ride the contributions of someone who has several publications on the topic without thoroughly reviewing the facts. Cinclodes (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And, we're a long, long, long, long way from putting 'finishing touches' on this article. The intro is awful. The taxonomy section is disorganised. The description section is ~50% just implying sightings of ivory-bills are just misidentifies pileated. Habitat and Diet is a okay start, but very skimpy (and has the just re-iterating Tanner problem that's pervasive). Breeding biology is a good start, but weirdly specific, and a bit disorganised ( and sparse ). The pre-1944 status stuff is starting to look okay (but needs to at least also reflect Snyder '07). The post '44 is ... a bit rough. The Relation with Humans is all in the context of Cache River - there's nothing about Audubon, nothing about Native American trade items, nothing about human hunting & eating, nothing about Birdwatchers & their politics .... From head to toe, the article is bad, bad, bad. I started with post '44 stuff because all the efforts to slag Fitzgerald there were the most egregiously bad bits, but they were hardly alone. WilyD 06:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the gist of the content of the two sections - I agree there is alot of trimming of words that can take place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The gist is largely fine (although there's some re-organising I'd do), but I was concerned that trimming, re-organising, and the like, might result in an editing dispute (which I think it has, though I'm still having a hard time parsing exactly what we're disputing). WilyD 11:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It is the two sections I mentioned above. Am right in the middle of something now. Will read again later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t have time to negotiate the content of one paragraph with someone who doesn’t know the subject and wants to make illogical changes (e.g., to “soften” a simple analysis of the expected waiting time for obtaining a photo that is based on known factors related to habitat and behavior). If anyone would like to clean up the article, I would recommend reverting to the version of the paragraph that I modified. I would also recommend restoring the discussion of the Kulivan sighting, which was arguably the most consequential since 1944, as it ultimately led to series of reports of sightings in Arkansas, Florida, and Louisiana that were published by scientists. If I were to remove anything, it would be the discussion of the photo that Lowery brought forward. It is not the Lowery photo. It was obtained by someone else. It is widely believed that the bird in that photo is a mounted specimen. To retain a discussion of that photo and remove the discussion of the Kulivan report would be absurd. Pointing out that nobody has proposed a plausible alternative explanation for any of the events in the 2006, 2007, and 2008 videos is not argumentative. There are published challenges to the video that was obtained in Arkansas. I have published detailed arguments for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 videos that are based on the statistics of avian flap rate, woodpecker flight mechanics, the probability of a series of events, etc. It is a fact that nobody has successfully challenged any of the analysis, and it is not argumentative to state this fact. Cinclodes (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to waste time, it's not sensible to take a highly confrontation approach. I'm less familiar with the subject than you are, sure, but also more familiar with Wikipedia's purpose and practices, which are also important in writing. WilyD 08:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Video of such poor quality as the Collins videos is easy to misinterpret, even by experts. There are reasons why cryptozoology relies on blurry evidence.

Over and over the "there is no other explanation" arguments prove to be false. When cameras have been set up at "ivory-billed feeding sites" based on "unmistakable" ivory-bill beak marks, or bark stripping, they often capture photos of pileateds, but never Ivory-bills. One or two "believers" have largely taken over the editing of this page, and their edits don't reflect the clear scientific consensus, which is that the evidence for continued survival is extremely weak. 75 years of no definitive evidence is not evidence of extreme wariness, it's evidence of extinction. All the blurry photos and blurry videos and imaginitave interpretation doesn't change that. The burden of proof lies with those claiming they've found the bird. That burden clearly hasn't been met and this article should clearly reflect that.PragmaticRealist (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate the evidence. The evidence has been published in peer reviewed journals, and it is properly cited and discussed according to Wikipedia standards. The cited publications contain arguments based on woodpecker flight mechanics, the statistics of avian flap rate, etc. If you want to debate the evidence, you should submit a comments letter. You would need to identify flaws in the published arguments or propose plausible alternative explanations for the birds that appear in the videos. Your comments above have no substance. Cinclodes (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's the stated position of most of the relevant authorities that the bird is critical endangered, not extinct (the IUCN is the usual source for Wikipedia), the US Fish & Wildlife service is a pretty good authority too, though there are obvious prominent exceptions (the ABA). My impression is that you can say the same about the literature; Though it's possible to debate that, of course, but the literature very obviously doesn't have anything that could be described as a clear consensus. It's a pretty clear case of applying the usual policy on the relative weightings to give different viewpoints. It gets a little bit tricky in a few cases that I can't find really disputed anywhere (Eastmann, Agey & Heinzmann), but I've bought Jackson's book on Amazon, which is supposed to go through the vast majority of the post '44 reports & evidence and scrutinise them (err, but it hasn't arrived yet, international shipping and all).

And since the bulk of the rewrite as been mine, and you're finding me to be a true believer while Cinclodes is insinuating I'm writing with exactly the opposite agenda, it seems I'm doing a pretty good job of threading the needle. WilyD 09:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to insunuate that you, WilyD, are a true believer at all, in fact I was appealing to your good judgment. I think you're doing your best to be balanced. Did you get my message? I would prefer to discuss this offline. Thanks. PragmaticRealist (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Naw, I don't think so. But I'm not concerned what people think my opinions are, beyond trying to use it as a barometer of how well I'm walking the NPOV-path. Certainly, one doesn't have to be stark raving mad, or pure evil, or something, to hold any particular notable view here, so I wouldn't be insulted if people though I held any particular opinion of any particular bit.

But of course, re-working the whole shebang, it'll no doubt become apparent at least in corners. So it's best to keep a wet finger in the wind. WilyD 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Most sources don't rank the importance of sightings/reports/evidence, so it's somewhat tough for Wikipedia to do that either. Above, here, I outlined the criteria I was using to include/exclude cases, which Kulivan failed. There wasn't much of a reaction at the time. The recovery plan does single out the Lowery (Lewis if you prefer, but that's not how it's usually described) photo, the Agey & Heinzmann feather, & the Dennis in the Big Thicket (& possible encounters by Jackson & Mann) as particularly of interest. Otherwise, I think Jackson goes through them encounters to examine them, but I haven't got that book on hand. I'm going to try to fix up the rest of this article, and I'm open to the possibility the balance won't be so bad when the rest of the article isn't underdeveloped. The "ultimately led to" is certainly true for Kulivan, but in a lot of ways that makes it sort of a footnote to the Cache River stuff - the sighting by itself probably isn't any more credible than say Robert Bean's. But of course these are questions that can be resolved through discussions and examination of the sources required. That's critical to Wikipedia - we're all formally anonymous, so readers need to be able to reference to published sources (both scientific & popular) to verify what's written here for themselves. WilyD 17:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You have admitted that you don't have access to a key reference. It is clear from modifications that you made previously that you have not read other references that are readily available and that you don't know this topic. Cas Liber has refuted your assertion that the size of the article is an issue. I find it very suspicious that (1) you want to meddle with an article on a topic that you don't know and (2) you gave an invalid reason to try to justify the modifications. Cinclodes (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, seriously. I said I'm in the process of obtaining a useful reference (but - again - Wikipedia is a collaborative project, there's no need for anyone to have access to all the references if we all work in good faith). Otherwise, ad hominem attacks aren't helpful (indeed, that I summarised a paper with only a slightly sloppy word choice is a pretty indication that I did read it). If there's some changes that I've made that're inaccurate, address them and why they're inaccurate. I've been soliciting other people's opinions since I first decided to try to clean up this dumpster fire; take a look Talk:Ivory-billed_woodpecker#Worth_saving_expeditions_stuff.

Indeed, it's very easy to see how the article has changed in the last 5 weeks or so since I started in - it's gone from strongly implying American ivory-bills went extinct in '44 and anyone who says otherwise is either a fraud or a lunatic, to (largely) taking the point of view that most authorities believe there are a small number surviving, but a sizeable minority believe they're extinct, and the situation remains largely unresolved (and that Wikipedia can't tell you what to believe). And really, gone from terrible to merely mediocre. It still needs a lot, a lot of work (which is tricky - as you note, a lot of subsequent sources vomit back Tanner's book, and trying to figure out how to balance that weight against sources who think it extrapolates too much from a few birds in one location is nuanced). But again, understanding the purpose and practices of Wikipedia is critical here: when the article is in good (or, dare I jinx it, great) shape, it'll be impossible to tell whether your wrote it, or Paul Sykes (for example) wrote it.

And, of course, I haven't said the size of the article is an issue. I said quite clearly that the enormous amount of focus on post-1944 searches/evidence (and even there, mostly the Cornell search) was unbalanced for an article about ivory-billed woodpeckers, not specifically about post-2000 searches for them, and that once everything else is fixed and expanded, size is likely to become an issue (and even acknowledged it's possible I'm overestimating the final balance needs because the rest of the article is so skimpy that the lack of balance is exaggerated.)

And like, again, Wikipedia is a collaboratively written encyclopaedia. I may have only a good lay-knowledge of the subject, but that's typically who writes Wikipedia articles (and indeed, all of the articles I've brought up to good or featured status are ones where I only have lay-knowledge of the topic). If you don't trust my heads-up, it's worth it to parse the other introduction guides or ask someone you do trust or whatever, because if you don't understand how & why Wikipedia works, you'll keep provoking needless conflicts (that're unlikely to go in your favour, since the processes for conflict resolution go in the direction of how and why Wikipedia works). WilyD 08:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(North) American Ivory-billed woodpecker

So, a few years ago, this was apparently moved to American ivory-billed woodpecker, then back, seemingly without discussion (I can't find any, anyhow). As it exists now, the intro is about both, the bulk of the article is then just about the American (sub-)species, and Cuban ivory-billed woodpecker has its own article. It leaves the beginning a kind of ragged mess. My instinct is to finish the separation, move this to American ivory-billed woodpecker (probably), and make ivory-billed woodpecker a disambiguation page. But, given the history, that'll probably be controversial? Possibly, making this strictly about American ivory-bills, hat-noting the existence of the Cuban species (in addition to mentioning it in taxonomy) makes more sense given common usage? Certainly the situation now, where the article changes from all ivory-bills to just American ones in the middle of the taxonomy section is untenable. So, I'm polling to see what people think, before I start cleaning up something that'll be a little harder to reverse if it's too controversial. WilyD 16:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The default is to have an article at the species-level page. Ages ago the birds wikiproject resolved to follow the IOC's lead on species splits/lumps. As it stands, the IOC to treat them as two subspecies of "Ivory-billed Woodpecker". Hence Ivory-billed woodpecker by that logic should be about both taxa. Given one is overwhelmingly alot more notable and studied than the other, it is then no problem that the bulk of the aritcle covers one subspecies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Emu seems to take this tack, and has articles on all the extinct subspecies, but not a separate one for the nominate species (but they're not excluded, the way the Cuban subspecies is excluded halfway through taxonomy). I'll think about this some more (and see if anyone else has ideas/opinions). WilyD 10:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, usually subspecies are not separated unless a lot can be said uniquely about them. Not sure if that's the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Two months ago, when the articles were largely about whether they persisted and what standard of evidence was needed to claim a sighting, they were very different. Now ... their anatomy is very similar; their ecology is sometimes thought to be different, though to some extent that may be a consequence of over-extrapolating Tanner's study. History is somewhat different (and I currently have no sense of the cultural significance of the Cuban bird, I haven't been digging those sources). The third bird in the clad ( Imperial Woodpecker ) - which may be more closely related to one of the sub-species than they are to each other - is probably about equally different in terms of what you'd write (similar anatomy, behaviour, but somewhat different ecology, it's own tragic tale of dealing with humans, possible extinction, etc.) Which is I guess a wordy way of saying I'm not positive whether it's the case here or not. WilyD 11:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Breeding biology vs. Description

So, going to add some material about the growth cycle of chicks, my instinct was to add it to "breeding biology"- but there's some contrasting of adults & juveniles in "description", and I thought I'd solicit opinions about whether/how it makes sense to re-organise these sections. At least, "breeding biology" certainly doesn't justify having a sentence about lifespans. Maybe a simple retitle to "Breeding and Lifecycle" or something is enough to resolve it, and put the development of chicks to adulthood stuff there? But I'm keen to hear if anyone has other thoughts? WilyD 10:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

In echo parakeet, I placed text on growth under breeding. Info on age is just in the general behaviour section. Contrasting adult and juvnile morphology should be under description. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Youtube video discussing this article by ornithologist Alison Styring

Mostly for my own reference, I'm leaving a copy of the link here. I'm not sure there's really anything actionable in it, but it's interesting to have the perspective (to me, at least). WilyD 10:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Another Collins Paper

Published in Scientific Reports last month, here [10]. It's re-analyses of the same stuff, so I'm not sure there's much that needs incorporating, but it's probably worth citing so interested readers can find it (and I'll give it a more thorough read after lunch to see if there's anything that might belong in here). WilyD 10:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• also for my own reference, I'm saving a link to this review of Hill's book [11] 15:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Territory estimate of 9.7 sq miles. Source?

From the Habitat and Diet section: "These birds need about 25 km2 (9.7 sq mi) per pair to find enough food to feed their young and themselves." What is the source of this information, and how was it estimated?

From USFWS: "Tanner found that the ivory-bill is usually territorial, but when resources dictate it can be nomadic. He estimated a home range varying from one pair per six square miles to one pair per seventeen square miles." https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW-general-brochure.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamWeib (talk • contribs) 22:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Those numbers do indeed come from Tanner, though you can find them most everywhere since pretty much everything is a regurgitation of Tanner. He estimated there were 7 pairs in 120 square miles on the Singer tract, 6 pair square miles along the Wacissa River; The Singer tract was his own observations, the California Swamp comes from a 19th century collector shooting all the birds in the swampI only have Jackson's book at hand, so I don't have the details of his method, obviously double checking Tanner's book is best. As far as I'm aware, it's like everything with Tanner - there aren't really a lot of competing data, so it's unclear how strong this is - Snyder's book also has a critical analysis of this (Snyder concludes that the range requirements were much less), but I don't have it on hand; it's not available online and very difficult to find a physical copy of these days (at least for me; if you live in an anglophone country, particularly one where people care about ivory bills, you might have an easier time locating it.) WilyD 06:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have all of those books and other literature. None that I'm aware of mention 9.7 sq miles per pair. So how was it calculated? If it can't be sourced, I suggest that number be removed and replaced with something actually in the historical literature or with the FWS quote I provided.

• • If you have Tanner's book, it should be in there; as I say, I only have Jackson's book at hand, and he only says "In the California Swamp in north Florida, he [Tanner] estimated there had been about six pairs in sixty square miles". I agree that the sentence is lousy as it is, and really we want to end up somewhere around "The typical range estimates come from Tanner's study, who found (6, 10, 17 square miles) from (a little detail - but I don't have Tanner's book handy), although Snyder has suggested these values may be significant overestimates from late in the birds decline, based on (mostly qualitative readings of early literature? Again, I don't have Snyder's book on hand at the moment; it's a pain in the ass to try to get your hands on it in France, during quarantine measures). Actually ... that might be sourceable to some of the reviews (say, Hill's) that're freely available online. I think with what's on hand, I can bring it from terrible to merely bad, but if you have Tanner's and Snyder's books on hand, you should be in a much better position to fix it than I am. WilyD 06:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think you've made some good changes. Given Snyder's (in my opinion, strong) arguments regarding the effects of hunting on ivory-billed populations, I suggest the words "to a lesser extent" be removed from paragraph 1. Habitat loss and hunting both contributed to population decline, and we can't be certain which was greater. Regarding the amount of habitat required for a pair of birds, should this wiki consider pre-civil war habitat, 1930's Singer Tract era conditions, the current 2021 habitat, or all of those? My point is that the quality of habitat determines food supply, and food supply is the major factor for size of home range. So home range size has changed over the decades. Birds living in the 1800s old-growth conditions would logically have had smaller home ranges than any birds alive today. Is it necessary or helpful to include any of that discussion, or just leave as-is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamWeib (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Well, we can pull the 'to a lesser extent' out of the intro; it's not necessary to specify there, and we get into it in detail below, so I think that's okay. Snyder's argument isn't the usual viewpoint, so the article still needs to reflect that his is the minority viewpoint. Past that, I don't think we can really discuss how habitat size needs may have changed over time because as far as I'm aware no one has really looked into that. I think we have to just parameterise the ignorance as "suitable" habitat, and not really define what's suitable, since it isn't totally known. WilyD 10:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think that even with "to a lesser extent" removed, the order presented still implies that habitat destruction was greater. That is fine, and we've conserved a few words. Suitable habitat is pretty well understood to mean forest with old-growth characteristics. So not necessarily virgin forest, but old enough that there is a constant supply of overly mature dead and dying trees that host beetle larvae beneath the bark.WilliamWeib (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Flight like a duck

Tanner and others, including many of those who have reported sightings post-1944 up to the present, have described the flight of ivory-billed woodpeckers as fast and straight, like that of a duck. In other words, the flight is not undulating like that of a pileated. That is a relatively important description, and I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article. WilliamWeib (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• In general, I'd recommend the advice here, just make changes, and we can discuss or rework them after. This article has a lot of reverting, but it's mostly because people edit trying to convince you it is, or isn't extinct. Anything else we might rework, but the article isn't very good, there's a lot of room for improvement, so generally just go for it. I *think* that heavy handed comparison to pileateds is kind of bird book-y; this is an article about about Ivory bills, not a field guide on how to distinguish them from other birds. But, go for it, if it's not okay by everyone, we can rework it. As it stands, the article is still pretty rough, so don't worry too much. WilyD 21:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• I understand your points. We need to either remove the other comparisons with pileated woodpeckers, or have a specific section for such comparisons, and explain why they are necessary. The vast majority of ivory-billed reports over the last 100 years have been dismissed as probable misidentified pileated. I'm okay deleting all the pileated info, or including the flight comparison. What do you think is best? Some of us have significant knowledge about the bird, but it seems you have the best knowledge of Wiki articles. So, I'm willing to follow your guidance here. Also, I'm not yet comfortable enough to make extensive edits. Thanks for the encouragement.WilliamWeib (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Well, as a sanity check, I looked at a couple of featured articles on birds, and they often have a sentence about how to distinguish it from similar birds in the "description" section. Northern pintail has one sentence on distinguishing them from Mallards, Black vulture has nothing, Tree swallow has nothing, Garden warbler has four sentences on distinguishing it from six other birds, Great spotted woodpecker has three sentences covering distinguishing it from Syrian woodpeckers, white winged woodpeckers, and Sing woodpeckers. So one sentence (each) on distinguishing it from pileated and red-headeds could be appropriate without "overdoing" it. In the subsection "evidence of persistence past 1944", we (rightly, I think) talk about how reports are often suspected to be of pileateds, so a more extended discussion of how they're similar/different is probably appropriate. As it stands, I think the whole paragraph about what pileateds look like in the "description" section is probably serious overkill, and should be reduced and/or moved to "evidence of persistence past 1944"

• • Past that, the article is still quite rough, so you shouldn't worry too much about mucking in - you can't break anything; the whole history of the article is saved (the little history tab at the top). When I started it was very heavily an article about whether they're extinct rather than what they were/are, and I may be overcorrecting (and very heavy-handed on comparing with pileateds, with a clear tone suggesting all reports are misindentified pileateds, to the point of suggesting the Lowery/Lewis photos might be of a pileated, which I might be overcorrecting on this too). But either way, there's certainly room for discussion of flight mechanics, with or without a comparison to pileated (or perhaps, woodpeckers generally or other Campephilus?). Peregrin falcon, for instance, has a section on flight under Behaviour and ecologgy, so does Black vulture, which contrasts them with Turkey vultures, and vultures more generally WilyD 09:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Folk names

One thing the article should address is the assertion (cited to Hoose, 2004) that "The ivory-billed woodpecker is sometimes referred to as [...] the "Lord God bird" or the "Good God bird" (both based on the exclamations of awed onlookers)". This etymology for the old folk names "Lord-god", and "Good God" applied both to the Ivory-billed and Pileated woodpeckers makes a nice story but is a fanciful modern invention.

All older (pre-2000s) sources suggest that "Lord-god" came about as a corruption of the earlier folk name "log-cock". E.g. Barrows in 1912 "in South Carolina the bird is universally known [...] as "Lord God,” which is obviously a corruption of “Log - cock"; or Corrington, The Auk, 1922: "The commonest term is "Lord God," said by some to be in fancied imitation of one of the call notes, but I agree with the explanation of Miss Pope that it is a corruption of “Log Cock," a designation met with in many parts of the south. The "Lord God" has itself suffered corruptions, among them being "Good God" and "Oh my God"."

It's made even clearer by the fact that all references for a name in the exact form "Lord God bird" seem to postdate Hoose - the many earlier lists of folk names all use the form "Lord-god". The same process led to other folk names in parts of the South, e.g. "Log-god" or "Log-guard".Svejk74 (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't that covered in the Taxonomy section? How would you revise it?WilliamWeib (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's covered in the sense that it follows Hoose in saying that it was popularly called the "Lord God bird" "based on the exclamations of awed onlookers". This is, however, doubly wrong. Firstly the Southern folk name was just "Lord-God", not "Lord God bird"; and secondly in the time the name was still being used most people seem to have thought it was a corruption of an earlier folk name, "Log-cock" (nothing to do with "awed onlookers"). Problem is the Hoose derivation has been cited everywhere since, so it can't just be ignored.

I'd suggest something along the lines of (with appropriate sources):"In the rural South, the ivory-billed and pileated woodpeckers were often called the "Lord-God". This was usually thought to have been a corruption of an earlier folk name, "Log-cock", although one recent writer has suggested it instead referred to the exclamations of awed onlookers. Related folk names such as "Good-god" and "log guard" were recorded, as well as those such as "kent" and "caip" based on the bird's call." Or something like that. Svejk74 (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• For the first item: So a person might have said to his friend, "There goes a Lord God." I doubt it, and same with Good God. But how about moving the parenthesis while keeping the word bird (ex: "Lord God" bird )?WilliamWeib (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That clearly is exactly what they said, since we have a record of forms like "Log-guard" and "Log-god" (imagine it in a strong Southern accent).Svejk74 (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I made changes that I think are generally in line with your suggestions. Let me know if you see a problem.WilliamWeib (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable approach.Svejk74 (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, when you add info, if you could reference where it came from, it'd be better. It helps avoid disputes, and lets readers follow back to the source. WilyD 11:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Another edit, mostly de-emphasizing Grail and attributing to modern authors. I haven't learned how to do the reference yet. Will try to get to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamWeib (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If you format it wrong (or don't format it at all), someone else can reformat it, eh? WilyD 17:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay , I only speak a mismash of Canadian and France French, but is "wooden hen" really the right translation here? I would have assumed it's far more along the lines of "chicken of the woods". WilyD 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's the translation I thought I got the first time using google translation, but now I'm getting "Wood Hen". That does make more sense, doesn't it? So am editing to that. Thanks for the prodding! However, that is with French->English. I can't find translation for Cajun French. Maybe it is different? I'm also trying to get a translation for Tit-ka from Maskoki to english but am having no luck there.WilliamWeib (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wood hen" is the proper translation of the Cajun French term in southern Louisiana. I've cited Tanner as a reference. Carlstak (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Using an online Muscogee (Creek) dictionary (https://creekdictionary.com) I find no entry for Tit-ka. However, I do find that Tetkv means wood-cock, and cvkvla means woodpecker. I'm going to assume that Tetkv is the current accepted spelling or a variation of the word Tanner wrote as Tit-ka, and will post the meaning of Tit-ka as wood-cock.WilliamWeib (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivory billed woodpecker

Are these woodpeckers really extinct ? I have some living in the woods behind where i live and have pictures of them , would like to know more about these woodpeckers , stands about maybe a foot or more tall and my wife feeds it from our back window , 1love19667 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

1love19667, if you really have evidence and pictures, you should submit them to the Fish and Wildlife Service. They supposedly have a 28-day comment period, starting tomorrow (Sept. 30), before this declaration becomes official. Here is an article, or if you can't read the NYT, here is a USA Today article. I couldn't find any mention of a comment period at the USFW webpage, but look again in a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Realistically though, what you're seeing is almost certainly the similar but still very much alive Pileated woodpecker. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Follow IUCN or USFWS?

Apparently the US Fish & Wildlife Service has declared the species extinct now, but the IUCN has not. We need a clear decision here which assessment to follow in the places in the article where qualifications are hard to apply - lede and infobox. For my part, I would assume we stick with IUCN as our baseline, as we do for species in general. Dropped note at Wikiproject Birds. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(BTW, I've suggested semi-protection for a day or two to take some of the heat off. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC))

There's a distinction here between the conservation status as assigned by an organisation, and the actual reality of the species' status. Conservation organisations are not making an unbiased judgement of the actual species status, for conservation reasons they will not classify a species as extinct even if they think it probably is. So an IUCN conservation status of "critically endangered" isn't really in conflict with the species being almost certainly extinct. In the lead we can just state the reality - "the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is probably extinct". I'm not sure the conservation status is actually important to include there in a case like this where it will be confusing. For the infobox my preference would be to include both statuses but not sure it matters much. Somatochlora (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we follow the assessments of the IUCN, and not of specific conservation organizations.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We should follow the IUCN, as is the norm for Wikipedia articles. I have reverted the page to the last edition from before today. -- Maykii (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Follow the IUCN in the taxobox. Make clear the USFWS position in the text of the article. That said, there are options to include more than one conservation status in the taxobox, so the USFWS position could also be shown (if that is supported). —  Jts1882 | talk  19:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The USFWS ruling is not final

I question the accuracy of something in the article. The article lead contains this statement: "In September 2021, the species was declared extinct by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.[4]" That is not quite accurate. Although the press is reporting the declaration as a done deal, this is actually a preliminary determination, with a public comment period to follow before it is final. Per the NYT article, "A 60-day public comment period on the new batch of 23 begins on Thursday. Scientists and members of the public can provide information they would like the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider before making a final ruling."[12]

Also, it says the above in the lead, but there is nothing in the text to support it, as there must be. An update needs to be added to the "Status" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. BTW I have given the article semi-protection for a week, as requested at WP:RFPP. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

Change from critically endangered to extinct 50.30.155.230 (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Other editors have updated the lead to include "In September 2021, the species was declared extinct by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The IUCN has not changed its assessment of the species." GoingBatty (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Once the IUCN assesses this species to be extinct, we will update its conservation status.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Woody Woodpecker

This is the exact species that described cartoon character Woody Woodpecker in one episode. Maybe a cultural reference can be added? Copperheart0718 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The episode was “Dumb Like a Fox” (1964). Copperheart0718 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ivory-billed woodpecker has been declared extinct

So yeah, apparently the USA has declared the speicies extinct, if someone with the knowhow on how to change the image showing it is Critically Endagered to Extinct can do that, please do. Xander11012 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The image in the infobox relates to the classification of the species by the IUCN red list of threatened species. They, still, are yet to change their classification. Visit:

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22681425/182588014

for more information. Historynerd2 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Natureserve as a source

They may be a respected source, generally, but their own listing for the ivory-bill is filled with errors and misinterpretations. Their position that the species is extinct is nothing more than a parroting of popular opinion, and not based on relevant history or current events. The person wanting to use Natureserve as a source demonstrated the same mindset, saying "Duh" about the status, without any apparent examination of the Natureserve listing or understanding that the FWS proposal for delisting is not final.

Not your call to make in any individual case; that's why they have experts on staff, and we report what the experts publish. Secondary conservation statuses in taxoboxes are not exactly high priority and we can very well do without it (especially since the status is discussed in depth in the body), but if it's "opinion of random WP editor vs NatureServe", we go with the latter... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

New paper with photos in pre-print

Project Principalis is publishing some of their research here, including photos of woodpeckers that look a lot like ivory bills. I added a brief blurb to the article but if a pre-print paper isn't deemed scholarly enough we can remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjore (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Scholarly isn't really the issue - it's a primary source with (as far as I know) no secondary sources just yet, so it may be a slight jump of the gun (but I'm pretty sure there'll be secondary sources within a couple days if there aren't already). In the short term, I'm personally not worried. WilyD 01:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Extinct

So when are they going to finally declare this bird extinct? Unlike the Loch Ness Monster at least this bird existed once but just like the Loch Ness Monster people keep looking for something that is now just not there. 47.138.90.224 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Once the sources we follow do so. In this case, the IUCN. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Kent and Kate as common names

Kent, Kate and several other common names were added in this edit. They are apparently sourced to "Hoose, 2004", although that reference was present before the names were added. I'm pretty skeptical that Kent or Kate are common names for ivory-billed woodpeckers (maybe names for individual birds in a zoo?). Can these names be confirmed? Plantdrew (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I would revert it as the source given doesn't list "Kent" or "Kate"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)