Talk:Rock dove/Archive 1

Archive 1

Breeding information

I read that pigeons are sitting their eggs for 18 to 20 days until the young birds arrive. I would like to see some details on breeding here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.49.67 (talk • contribs) 1 July 2003

Illustration rock dove

The illustration does not show a wild rock dove, but a domesticated pigeon. Some features don't correspond to the wild birds (e.g. the bill). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.202.137 (talk • contribs) 2 December 2003

And "pinning for the fjords"? Forget the fact that it should be "pining", since when is Wikipedia a Monty Python fan club? --Christophernicus 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

North America

Isn't this the species that is present in North America? Article only mentions Europe. Rmhermen 14:43, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

see amended opening paragraphs, which should clarify jimfbleak 15:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maritime?

Here's perhaps a harder question. Why are its haunts maritime? It seems a pretty terrestrial bird to me. Rmhermen 16:36, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

The wild bird is a cliff-breeder, and therfore usually associated with coastal= maritime areas - not the same as marine! jimfbleak 19:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So the one which is maritime is the wild bird not the feral one? Rmhermen 21:51, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

The wild birds are found on cliffs, and the feral ones use buildings as substitute cliffs. However, interbreeding means that even on the coasts most birds are not pure Rock Doves; outside the natural range, they are all off feral stock wherever they are: Jim

What about Passenger Pigeons?

It seems like what was the most common bird in the world, and perhaps the first, most widely recognized 'Pigeon' should at least be mentioned here. A link to that wiki page would make sense, wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.153.4 (talk • contribs) 14 June 2005

Why? All the pigeons are listed under the family article. Passenger Pigeon is completely unrelated to Rock Dove, and when it was extant didn't even share the same continent. Are you suggesting that this link goes onto every (potentially 300) pigeon article? If not, why Rock Dove?

Why "first" pigeon - why most widely recognised? It never occurred outside North America jimfbleak 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I was thinking narrowly about the US. I believe my confusion is clarified by the sentence - 'In common usage, this bird is often simply referred to as the "pigeon".'

Passenger and Rock Pigeons didn't share the same continent? Passenger Pigeons went extinct in 1914, and Rock Pigeons were introduced in 1606. Thus, they did share the same continent. --Evice 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Drinks?

"Like other pigeons it often drinks." - What does this mean? Why is it signifigant enough to have it's own paragraph? Last I checked, ALL animals have to drink (water) to survive. Is this some kind of vandalism that I just don't understand? Pacian 05:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - its an odd statement. Its been in the article for a while, but I've removed it now. -- Solipsist 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

All animals have to ingest water: very many, including many birds, do not drink, but derive their water needs from their food. Kevin McE 12:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that person meant to say that it drinks through its nostrils. --Evice 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In city pigeons' case, soda and beer.

what is their predator?

I hate pigeons. They seem to have no predators in the urban environment. I'm wondering what animals would exist to keep pigeon population to a low if we introduced them to cities?--Sonjaaa 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Peregrine Falcon is a feral pigeon eater in the wild and where it now breeds in cities - however, the pigeon racing fraternity would prefer to see the falcon exterminated, since they lose birds to the bird of prey! jimfbleak 19:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Healthy pigeons are quite interesting and attractive animals. The city birds are often in poor health, probably because humans (1) feed them inappropriate food -- food that isn't even very good for humans, and (2) throw scraps of their pwn food on the street rather than putting it in trash cans where it belongs. The result is that pigeons can be supported in good enough health to breed successfully enough to maintain large populations, but with such poor nutrition that even though the pigeons are alive and breeding they are not healthy.

Think about it. If the pigeons didn't eat the bread crumbs and the scattered Fritos, then the rats and mice would have that much more to eat. If people weren't litterbugs there would be fewer and healthier pigeons. Pigeons are much more monogamous than humans, take care of their young with sedulous care, both parents contributing to their feeding, create beautiful displays of precision flying, etc. Of course it is true that you don't want to park your car under a pigeon roost. What else can a healthy pigeon do to offend? P0M 07:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you hate pigeons? I bet you do much more damage to the enviroment than 1 million pigeons do. I find them kinda cute. By the way, what should a pigeon be fed so he/she can be healthy? Cuzandor 23:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pigeons in nature eat all kinds of grains. Eating a newly fallen grain of wheat is different from eating white bread because the grain has all its germ (embryonic wheat plant) and its natural roughage, all of the vitamins and minerals that are lost when the grain is processed to make the equivalent of leavened library paste :-( , etc. When I kept pigeons I used to buy a mixture of whole grains from the feed store up the street. Whole grains of corn probably are a little too large for pigeons to handle easily. That leaves the kinds of small grains like milo, millet, rape (Canola's source, a relative of radish if I remember correctly), etc., etc. If you go to one of the large chains like Home Depot or Lowes, and many supermarkets, you will find plastic 5 pound bags of mixed seeds. I guess the one thing I would avoid (other than whole corn) would be anything that was not a mix -- and that caution would apply only for pigeons who weren't going out and finding things to balance their diets on their own. The other thing that pigeons need is clean water. Living in the city they are likely to get all sorts of contaminants from puddles of water they find on the streets.

The person who "hates pigeons" may just be reacting to the sight and behavior of sick pigeons. Even some of the Wikipedia photos show birds that look unhealthy (feathers fluffed out as though for sleep, and drooping eyelids in the middle of the day are not good signs). Some pigeon diseases are transmissible to humans, and sharing air with sick pigeons that are nesting on one's 20th story window sill can get people seriously ill. Pigeons tend to be highly disease resistant in my experience, but if they are malnourished and drinking water that other pigeons and other species of birds have crapped in, then the chances of their getting a serious disease are greatly increased. It would be good if people in big cities could be encouraged to feed bird seed and not bread crumbs, Fritos, salty buttered popcorn, etc., etc. Omniverous umans can't even thrive on some of the junk that pigeons are being fed. P0M 13:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also RAW peanuts (not salted). One acquaintance, more learned in wildlife lore than I, claims raw peanusts, which contain a trypsin inhibitor, would be a problem in large quantities, and that makes sense. But it seems that inhibitor is denatured in other legumes (e. g., soy beans used in animal fodder) by heat; we toast our peanuts at 300°F for about 15-20 minutes (much as we do nuts we buy for ourselves, but in our case, it's because they taste better...). Want a friend for life? Go to the park with a handful of peanuts. --djenner 12:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! That was very helpful P0M. Cuzandor 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, can healthy pigeons get lethal diseases from other pigeons? Cuzandor 19:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The disease that I remember from my days of raising pigeons and other poultry is coccidiosis, a protozoan parasite that infects domestic animals, birds, and sometimes humans. (That's the reason you don't want to share space with pigeons who are not on medical care.) Since pigeons live in flocks they can easily pass the disease among themselves. If I recall correctly, we used to put stuff in the water to prevent infections from setting in, so I suspect that drinking from a puddle recently visited by a sick bird may be a common way of catching that disease. Coccidiosis is a serious disease both for humans and for pigeons. P0M 01:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC) (Edited for clarity by Elvey)

Loving pigeons is fine, but getting them to pay rent is another story. I'm constantly battling for control of my apartment balcony, growing concerned about the health effects of cleaning up pigeon droppings, tossing out enough eggs to make a nice breakfast omelette, and getting peeved about my "second alarm clock" going off before I'm ready to get up for work in the morning (namely the loud coo-cooing right below my bedroom window). I added links on pigeon-related diseases such as histoplasmosis to the article for anyone who is interested. Anonymous - 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's always interesting to see who has done their homework carefully. The New York City Health & Mental Hygiene folks have a note on the subject of pigeons and health that pretty much summarizes the long, and rather silly, papers one finds in the journal lit: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/epi/epi-pigeon.shtml. Short version: While you probably should not hang out with pigeons if you have a compromised immune system, well, you probably shouldn't be hanging with dogs, or cats or people, either; you might get sick. While pigeons do get sick, generally speaking what pigeons get you can't get. The most obvious zoonotic possibility: There is a very large family of viruses (paramyxoviruses — see the excellent Wikipedia article under that head); pigeons and other fowl (most notably chickens) get one kind; human beings get other kinds (notably, measles and the common cold). Like other animals, pigeons get ticks and other pests; those that live on pigeons pretty much can't survive or breed on human beings (see Haag-Wackernagel, "Parasites from feral pigeons as a health hazard for humans" in Ann Appl Biol, 147 (2005) 203–210; Haag-Wackernagel seems not very fond of pigeons, and even he can't really come up with much to say against them). Pigeons poop; the poop is very rich and omnipresent soil microbes will grow in it — this is why it's prized as fertilizer; pigeon poop is not hazardous waste (unless, perhaps, you roll around in it, but we can leave out the perverted from our consideration?...), is entirely water-soluble and is easily managed (of course, building and park personnel would have to wash things once in awhile, and this could prove a union problem, them having to work...)[again, cf: the NYCHMH article]. Birds do poop, and if you happen to be under the tree when they do, they gotcha. May be a pigeon, may be a sparrow, may be, well, whatever bird happens to be around.

BUT: Want the perfect urban pet? Find a small flock of pigeons. Spend a little time with a half cup of birdseed and a small handful of peanuts for a few days, and the birds will recognize you, come to you, sit with you and be quite attentive as you tell them of your cares and woes. And, no 6AM walkies. And, no smelly (and messy, and unhealthy) litterboxes.

Clearly, there are people who don't like birds. The fears are generally less than rational; when reasons are advanced, they are frequently æsthetic, matters of taste — and thus not really disputable, but merely personal at most. Other people dislike cats. Other people dislike dogs. All of these really are just a matter of taste (or a penchant for confusing Woody Allen movies — "rats with wings" was popularized in "Stardust Memories" — with reality). Other people dislike Asians, or Jews or persons of color. --djenner 12:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

I propose renaming the article Rock pigeon and lowercasing all references in the text (thus rock pigeon), making it compliant with Wikipedia policy, unless there is a strong ornithological reason not to do so. ProhibitOnions 20:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

not again! - for years now the agreed standard for bird species' articles has been capitalisation, for reasons discussed at length in the past. More than two thousand bird articles have the caps format, with sometimes hundreds of links from each article as well (see list of hummingbirds or dove. If you are not happy with the long-standing consensus, please raise it on the ToL discussion page. jimfbleak 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, there. The designation is a common name that has only recently been adopted as an official description for the bird by some organizations, which was not without controversy. I raised the question not about "the long-standing consensus" about bird species, but about this one species in particular. I take your reasoning to be a strong ornothological reason. ProhibitOnions 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

terminology

The beginning of the article referred to "feral pigeon, homing pigeon, or domestic pigeon" as common synonyms for "Rock pigeon." Why mix two generic terms "feral pigeon" and "domestic pigeon" (which are antonyms, for what it's worth), with the name of a specific breed of pigeon -- a breed so little understood by the average speaker of English that what is actually a homing pigeon will frequently (even in encyclopedias) be called a "carrier pigeon" -- which is another breed. Why pick the name of one breed out of a list of dozens of breeds? Why use a breed to stand in for the set of all breeds plus the actual Rock pigeons from which all these breeds were developed?

Homing pigeons are frequently of the general color pattern shown in the individual at the top of the taxonomy box, but they can be distinguished from non-homing pigeons by a couple peculiarities of their head shape. It is not unheard of for a homing pigeon to fail to make it home and take up life "on the streets," or perhaps even for some keeper of pigeons to free his/her flock for some reason. So one might find the occasional homing pigeon on the streets of any major city, but it's hard to imagine anybody knowing the name "homing pigeon" confusing that name with all feral pigeons. It is even more unlikely that a citation can be provided that establishes the equation of "feral pigeon" and "homing pigeon" in the accounts of anyone writing a peer-reviewed article.

I have accordingly cut the reference to "homing pigeon" in the intro paragraph. P0M 07:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "Feral"

Maybe I missed it, but perhaps near the beginning, a definition of the word "feral" could be added--most people don't know the strict definition of the word. A wild Rock Pigeon who has adapted to domestic life is not feral. A domestic bird who has escaped to the wild is feral.

So were you saying that another name for wild Rock Pigeon is Feral Pigeon, or that Feral Pigeon is a common name for wild Rock Pigeons living in cities but that the term is incorrect, or were you saying that Feral Pigeon is the term for domestic pigeons escaped to the wild, possibly crossbred with Rock Pigeons?

Also, are the variations of domestic pigeons actually considered separate breeds?

Adding this information at the beginning of the article, in order to explain the bird's name, might be helpful.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccodolphin (talk • contribs) 9 May 2006

Taxobox image.

I replaced the taxobox image with one where the pigeon is (a) facing left, and (b) occupying more of the frame. I don't know enough about birds to make a good caption for it, however. The plumage pattern looks pretty close to the one in the other image, but I could be wrong. If anyone knows, help would be appreciated. grendel|khan 05:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Selective breeding has produced many strains of pigeons with different colors. There would be some point in getting a photograph of a pigeon from a truly wild population, but I don't know whether unmised wild populations exist anymore. The picture you have provided looks fine to me. It's the sickly birds on the left side of the page that bother me. P0M 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the birds on the left are less sickly than you imagine. Whilst I don't doubt your earlier comments about sickness being common in urban pigeons, the main reason these pigeons have ruffled feathers and are not particularly active is simply that it was a cold, misty, winter morning in Hyde Park, London. The fluffed feathers is probably a reaction to retain body heat similar to goose bumps in humans. -- Solipsist 11:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked the hi-resolution picture. You are right. Their eyes look normal. So the caption should indicate why they are puffed up. It is indeed to retain heat better. P0M 19:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold -- Solipsist 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

not neutral?

Why is there a neutrality challenge on this article? Looks like vandalism to me. P0M 05:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are a lot of disputes on this talk page--and there's nothing wrong with this, but I don't see any real major issues. We should take this off, maybe I will. Cazort 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the POV tag was added in this edit by an anon. And I guess they have a point, although it is also true that pigeons are seen as vermin by many people. As such I've reworded the most POV paragraph and tried to improve the structure of the 'Feral pigeons in cities' sections, although the flow of ideas is still a little muddled here even though the material is mostly good. In any case, its good enough to remove the POV tag. -- Solipsist 07:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Raptor predation of sports bird

The article claims "Peregrine Falcons and Eurasian Sparrowhawks are natural predators of pigeons that are quite adept at catching and feeding upon this species, as shown by the high losses of racing pigeons to these predators".

After checking the reference I found out that this claim is based on a quoteby Dr Philip Lynch from the lobby organization Scottish Homing Union's Save Our Sport from Raptors who lobbies for a law to permit killing of raptors. Therefore, it seams to me, this claim is more a reflection of a personal opinion than any factual supported fact and should be edited out.

Scottish Natural Heritage writes in 2004:

"There is no evidence that birds of prey cause major losses of racing pigeons at lofts or during races, according to a new study funded by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Homing Union (SHU). [...] The study found that 56% of racing pigeons are reported lost annually to all causes, but sparrowhawks - the birds often blamed for major losses - accounted for less that 1%. [...] It also estimated that a minimum of 2% of racing pigeons were taken by peregrines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batsvensson (talk • contribs) 00:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cher Ami mention

Cher Ami is not a French pigeon. I don't know what nationality you would attribute to the pigeon since it was donated by British but used in American service... 69.111.78.17 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll say he's British, given as how he was hatched in England.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon as food.

It should be mentioned that the Rock Pigeon is edible and very good dishes can be made with it. It is a common menu in some parts of Mexico. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.163.151.241 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Good picture?

Can anyone tell me if this picture of a rock pigeon is good? Kind of dull but...

Josh215 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you post that? Wattylfc 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's my first picture.. I'm sure that when someone uploads their first pictures they ask something. Anyway, I'm asking because I want to see if my picture can be used for good measure. Josh215 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's nice. The picture itself isn't too dark, it's a good size, there's a good level of detail, and the bird displays its species' natural markings. 71.217.114.221 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good picture (below) I recently took that might be good for this, or another pigeon related article. Editors use or not use at your own discretion! Kethinov (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rating

I've rated this article per a request on the Wikiproject birds. The article is somewhere between a start and B - it has a lot of information but is heavily skewed towards pigeon-human interactions; the article needs to be widened to include more about the biology of the species. Its getting there, and is quite an important species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for rating this article. It's amazing how such an article didn't get rated until now. Josh215 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rock pigeon

I redirected Rock pigeon here (and Pigeon to Columbidae); that article was subject to a long edit war, and it contained the vague definition of:

A Rock pigeon is any of several species of Australian pigeon. The rock pigeons are related to, and in many ways similar to, the bronzewing pigeons. A rock pigeon is not a Rock Pigeon Columba livia.

1. We don't normally disambiguate just by capitalization
2. We don't normally need dab pages for 2 items, especially not when one is far more prominent than the other
3. When one types "rock pigeon" in the search box, it's far more possible that he wants Rock Pigeon than Australian species (actually, those are two species)
4. I added the dab notice on top of this article, fixed a couple of incoming links, and created a stub of Petrophassa.

Duja► 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Spread of Disease

I'm concerned about the objectivity and reliability of the Spread of Disease section. The citations for the Spread of Disease section only references one site - http://www.urbanwildlifesociety.org. Many of the quotes seemingly attributed to reliable sources, such as the CDC or the NY Dept of Health, in fact point to a quotes page on that site. However, this quotes page is unsubstantiated. --PCStuff 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The only disease I've ever heard about pigeons suffering from is coccidiosis. A decade or so ago, I read some articles about humans acquiring this disease by inadvertent close association with pigeons. The story was that several people had contracted the disease because their living spaces or office spaces were open to air currents that carried infective material from the nesting areas of the birds. I do not know the frequency of such disease transmission but judging by the required circumstnces it must have been low. The moral of the stories seemed to have been that if you had pigeons nesting on your window ledge it might be hazardous to your health unless the window was well sealed. Generally speaking, it is rare for humans to inhale dust arising from pigeon nests. I wonder what other sources of information on disease transmission there may be. If the rate of transmission is indeed low then it may well be that only people who want to sell their extermination services will write articles on the subject. P0M 04:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Coccidia is something most pigeons seem to have; some veterinary medicine folks think that a low level is actually prophylactic — keeps the immune system functioning. One article somewhere in MedLine asserts that tests indicate 30 percent of people in frequent contact with pigeons show coccidia antibodies — against something like one-tenth that in people with no such frequent contact. Seems generally to be controlled, then, by normal immune systems. People with compromised immune systems, of course, have problems; they would have them anyway. --djenner (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My memory must be bad, or else some people use medical terms without due care. There are three diseases associated with pigeons that humans may get, and all transmissions are rare. Generally they are related to activities such as major clean-ups of pigeon roosts in buildings. See http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/epi/epi-pigeon.shtml

P0M 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The key element is the rarity. The number of cases described is vanishingly small. The clean-up thing is also interesting. Here, the issue is not pigeons propter se, but pigeon detritus — lots of old poop and lots of other stuff, allowed to accumulate, sometimes for decades. This is more stuff than one normally sees, even if one deals with a dove-cote; outdoors, a mild rain usually washes the stuff away; indoors or under shelter, a 15 minute hose-down cleans up pretty well what one might see in, say, a week. The "industrial quantity" situation is more dramatic: The stuff is dry and dusty; a NIOSH approved negative-pressure mask is recommended and washable clothing (not hazmat suits, or anything dramatic, though); wet down the poop (control the dust), shovel it into sacks, and put it out with the garbage (unless the landlord has been really remiss, in which case you may need a serious dumpster!). The point here: Pigeon detritus is not hazardous waste, proximally and for the most part. --djenner (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Though feral pigeons are often associated with the threat of disease, this is actually a fairly recent idea. Pigeons have been associated with a variety of diseases, including histoplasmosis and cryptococcis." This is a rather ambivalent line, seems to me. Whatever. A great deal of research on pigeons has been done by a chap at Basel, name of Haag-Wackernagel. Seems to have a sort of cognitive-dissonance problem with the wee birdies; on the one hand, seems fairly admiring, on the other, seems to be getting a good living from telling Basel how to knobble its pigeon-population. [Academics can be bought.... Cheaply.] Reading through his papers (some available online) one has the sense he really wants to make a case that playing with pigeons can make you sick; his summary survey and analysis of the relevant literature suggests that some allergic reactions (as with other animal contacts) and immune-system difficulties can render one more prone to problems — but not a great deal more than that rather modest level of susceptibility. His complaints anent pigeon doodoo-damange reflect on public-servant/building-staff laziness (a bit of water under pressure applied every couple days seems to flush pigeon droppings away pretty effectively), at least as much as on the problems of pigeon-shit. --djenner 17:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the risks involved in spreading avian flu. The originally cited source was a secondary source that made its own further conclusions without further studies. The primary source, which I have added in the reference section, more clearly supports the present wording. --LasseFolkersen 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited even more in the disease-section. Somebody was referring some bird-breeding society as a source for the H5N1 susceptibility of pigeons. I found the original scientific article and used that instead. It seems however that there was two contradicting works. A definite conclusion here will have to wait untill more is published. --LasseFolkersen (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reports on H5N1 in pigeons are spotty, and for that reason, suspect. The hypothesis is too easily subjected to falsification, therefore prima facie not robust; the other side, some sort of verification, in a wider range of labs, is also lacking. The evidence from the wild (so to speak) is that one or two dead birds have been reported as having H5N1 in post-mortem examinations (I seem to recall, this was the report of a team looking at Avian Flu outbreaks in Hong Kong). It was not, as I recall, maintained that the birds died from this, nor that they had been either a vector or repository for transmission. Even allowing that pigeons could pick up the virus — not unreasonable — it is prudent to recall just how hardy they are. That is a line of thinking that needs further development, and someday I may have the time to do it.--djenner (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the most serious zoonotic-disease allegation involving pigeons is C. foramens. This can induce pneumonia in human beings. However, this is another one of those diseases that no one ever seems to get from pigeons — no cases actually described showing the transmission. I seem to recall seeing a reference to this when I was searching it out last November, saying that CDC has actually dropped pigeons from the list of transmission vectors — but I failed to copy the citation and I haven't time to track it down. I suspect it was somewhere in a Pennsylvania agriculture bulletin, advising farmers how to keep healthy, but I'm buggered if I can find it. --djenner (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rock Dove

Does anyone seriously think that the quasi-official name change resulted in drastic change in usage? Does anyone have a cite for that? WilyD 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

still rock dove for me jimfbleak 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Same - I heard the usual nomenclature of Pigeon had been promoted to official-like status, but I had never once heard Rock Pigeon until today. Of course, I haven't been a serious bird watcher in 10-15 years, but I still get a lot of questions about why there are four or five pairs of binoculars in my car - I'm no stranger to the hobby. WilyD 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the change was made to differentiate feral populations (Rock Pigeon) from any populations that had not undergone human-induced selection (Rock Dove).

Dietary problems?

I believe the following uncited paragraph of the article is bogus, although quite amusing.

Unfortunately, their descent unto the urban landscape has led the naturally reticent fowl to feed on the abundancy of junk fodder which self-presents. This has led, inevitably, to the degradation of their available food matter, thus causing an irreversible delapidation of their already notoriously fragile urinary tract system. In a randomised study by Dr Marti Humble (Ph.D.) of the University of Vienna, the findings indicated an acidity level in excess of 10.4 pH in the City Pigeon as opposed to the norm of 8.9 pH (max) in a 'normal' Wood Pigeon in the Netherlands. These findings led Dr Humble to conclude that there is a direct correlation betwen intake of batter and high concentration of amino acids in the liquid expulsions of the 'gutter birds'. A sorry consequence of this is the unnatural loss of upto and including one or more toes per claw from each pigeon foot. The resultant instability of which can, and all too often does, have fatal implications for the aforesaid ornothods.[citation needed]

208.204.155.241 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Stefan Economou, Boston MA

National varieties of English

There seems to be an edit war occurring over the spellings of words such as color/colour, luster/lustre, etc. This needs to stop. Wikipedia policy is that we respect a "ceasefire" with respect to national varieties of English, leaving stable articles alone rather than changing from one version of English to another. If the edit war continues, I will issue 3RR blocks in order to stop it; please let's not make that necessary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For guidance, this article was originally written in British English, and is about a species which was native to Europe, so there really shouldn't be any argument about the preferred form. jimfbleak 05:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that this bird is native to Europe means that UK English should remain? You didn't follow that logic with the Common Loon, which has a N. Am. population 2 or 3 orders of magnitude bigger than the minuscule European population. Come on, mate. Be consistent. 70.48.44.98 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am consistent - Great Northern Diver and Rock Pigeon were both written in British English, both are common birds in western Europe, so no reason to change either. The only point I was making was that this species is not even native to NAm, so there isn't any justification at all for Americanising the spelling/ jimfbleak 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Use in military crest

Hi everyone! I'd like to point out somewhere on this page that the rock dove is the main image in the crest for Tactical Communications Wing. I was wondering where would be best to do this? Thanks! --LookingYourBest 07:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved Video

Hello again all! I've just removed the video from the article because I think it really made the page look a mess! Here it is;

Pigeons eating seeds

Could anyone add it back in, under Feral Pigeons in cities, and make it look nice ... I don't have the skills! Cheers! LookingYourBest 14:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon/Feral pigeon/Domestic pigeon

There are good separate pages for feral pigeon and domestic pigeon. I wonder if quite a bit of the current Rock Pigeon page might be better on one of those?

That would leave this page as principally a wild bird page, with mention of the others and links to them. It would provide an umbrella for the species as a whole, but would avoid losing the wild bird information amongst the domesticated/feral stuff.

Any thoughts?--Richard New Forest 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

makes sense to me Jimfbleak 14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already moved the 'Population control' section to the Feral pigeon article, as this exclusively described population control amongst feral birds. --Kurt Shaped Box 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So I see – that was quick, you did it even before I suggested it...--Richard New Forest 15:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is current discussion on this point at talk:feral pigeon (apparently copied from somewhere else, but not sure where) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Rock pigeon. Shall we have the discussion in one place, and if so, where?--Richard New Forest 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How about here? I'm copying the two comments below from the bird-project talk page:

I'm quite happy with the fork - we've regularly separated wild and domesticated species (eg chicken from Red Junglefowl, and domesticated and wild turkeys). I'd also hive off the cultural stuff if there was enough. Jimfbleak 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The split seems sensible to me (in fact coincidentally I'd just that minute suggested it myself). As long as there are suitable summaries and links on the Rock Pigeon page, I don't see that there's any danger of the different branches of the species getting lost. My own feeling was not so much in the article getting too long, but that the wild Rock Pigeon was getting lost in the much fuller domestic and feral stuff. I wonder if this discussion is better conducted on the relevant page(s)? --Richard New Forest 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My preference is always to have everything on one species together, but in this case the different topics are substantial enough for different articles, and I can see why people like for one part not to get lost next to another. Despite "be bold", though, I might have discussed so big a change before making it. —JerryFriedman 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'd become so concerned about the move. The user who had made the change has never posted on the talk page, and had made only one edit to the article prior to this one. Nothing was discussed here on talk, and nothing was explained in the edit summaries. I was suspicious that an individual who seemed to edit so haphazardly might be neglectful of policies or guidelines concerning splitting articles in this manner. I'm still convinced that the article wasn't really long enough to warrant a fork (and it wasn't, according to size guidelines), but if the rest of the community and members of the project find it acceptable, then I have no real issue with it.--C.Logan 18:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I split Domestic pigeon & Feral pigeon off because I feel the three articles will grow better separately. Wikipedians with special knowledge of wild rock pigeons, domestic pigeons or feral pigeons will be more inclined to add to the articles. I will add more links.Barbara Shack 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I’ve split off the stuff about the symbolism of pigeons and created a new article, Doves as Symbols
Barbara Shack 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the splits you've made. I think the info on this article page re "Pigeon lung" would probably be better with the Domestic pigeon article as that condition is more pertinent to pigeon fanciers in close contact with their domesticated birds. The Rock Pigeon being more in the natural state isn't going to contribute to a keepers health simply because they are not domesticated. What do you think? Sting au 11:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right there. Done and done. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work on splitting out the feral and domesticated details. Can the same be done with the pics, so that the Rock Pigeon article is illustrated with birds that at least look like wild-type birds! At the moment they all show obvious domesticated or feral birds - MPF 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

J.M.Garg's pic from Kolkata looks OK, I'll move that to the taxobox - MPF 12:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's definately a better picture of wild type Columba livia. Well done. Sting au 12:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from five years in the future, and in hindsight it seems fucking stupid to have 3 separate articles for what is essentially the same species. Wouldn't splitting it into domestic and wild pigeons be enough? If "feral" pigeons are considered "escaped" domestic pigeons, include them in the domestic pigeon article. If not, include them in the rock pigeon article. Having 3 articles for one species seems really stupid. I had to check 3 times to make sure I wasn't going crazy or that there wasn't some error on either the rock pigeon or feral pigeon articles when I saw they had identical species identification. At least on the domestic pigeon page it has a subspecies identifier to make it clear what is going on. I actually came to the talk page initially to complain that there were three articles for a single species before I saw this (now ancient) discussion on the subject. I think this shit needs a revisit. 184.88.231.118 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Although is is ok in broadness and fine in neutrality, it is very weak in referencing. Since there are many things to be fix, I'l fail it for now so that it can be renominated and have a second review once these things are fixed.

• this bird is often simply referred to as the "pigeon". Which? domestic, feral, wild or all three?

Comment - well all three but I've moved the text up to make it less confusing. So  Done

• was named Rock Dove until 2004 - include source  Done
• introduction at port royal - needs source  Done
• Characteristics and Reproductions sections need sources. The further reading section looks like it really is meant to be references. Use inline citation instead.  Done I have left the further reading section though as I believe it to be useful and in no way detracts from this article. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• These birds come in many different colours mature birds or Stock Doves?  Done
• The domestication section is unreferenced (as is its parent article).  Done
• These show a variety of plumages, although some look very like the pure Rock Pigeons. needs source  Done
• The scarcity of the pure wild species is partly due to interbreeding with feral birds needs source  Done
• The prose (hard to follow, and expressions such as like any other wild animals isn't helpful) and paragraph layout (too many, and in random order) in Spread of disease isn't good.

Comment - I've merged the disease section but think another option is just keep first summary of feral and merge rest of it to feral pigeon article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sting au (talk • contribs) 01:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• The lead contains terminology (which is ok) but lacks a summary of the article.

Comment - Summarized main sections.  Done Sting au Buzz Me... 03:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can't tell which reference is for the text about west nile virus  Done

Narayanese (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Narayanese. I had a feeling that it wouldn't pass but as this is my first nom for getting an article to GA I can use it to learn from. I appreciate the feedback and will get to work (in due time, bit busy today) on the fixes. I was wondering about the further reading section? I probably need to create a "notes" section and footnote to that with page numbers etc. Still a learning curve for me here. Going through this process will help teach me how best to work on articles. Thanks again for the suggestions. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My own preference is to have it all under References (see cat for an example). That way the reader can click on a note in the text and immediatly get to the reference to read more on soething a sentence touched upon - a notes section introduces an extra step (although a notes section can help sort out page numbers if you have many cites to the same book).

I guess you can keep the further reading section if it is meant as book tips and not references, although I don't see much point in it. If they are references as I suspect, put it in a <ref> it the end of the right paragraph instead.

Happy editing! Narayanese (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a ref for the first intro' to North America. I'll mark off the above list as I do the fixes. Removed comment about many colours from characteristics section as that mainly applies to feral populations. Wild type is commonly blue barred but chequer (that's the English spelling) pattern was a mutation from wildtype. Not sure if that mutation happened in the wild or after domestication? Although Columbia affinis rings a bell?Sting au Buzz Me... 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for suggestions for an article summary in the lead section. Any ideas anyone? Sting au Buzz Me... 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

• The 1st EL isn't necessary as you have the Commons template. The 3rd could/should probably be used as a ref. Same with the BBC one...(so you can remove the section) Done (Ref'd one and rm section)
• The stuff in the Further reading could also be used as references, if possible  Done (ditto)
• "which was the official name used by the British Ornithologists' Union and the American Ornithologists' Union until 2004, when they changed their official listing of the bird to Rock Pigeon" - change the "when" to "at which point" or something like that.  Done
• General practice is to cite everything, or nothing, in the lead, not a mixture of the two  Done
• I think you should swap the lead's 2nd and 3rd paragraphs (that seems logical to me, and would require swapping the sections too)  Done
• "Often found in pairs in the breeding season but usually gregarious." - this isn't a sentence... Done (it is now?)
• "This species" --> "The species" (throughout) Done
• "10 million km². It has a large global population, including an estimated 17–28 million individuals in Europe" - 10 million km² could do with a ref, and you need a full stop after Europe  Done
• "evidence suggests Columba livia" - either refer to it as Rock Pigeon or C. livia throughout, don't use both  Done
• "the Rock Pigeon probably only occurs pure in the most remote areas" - OR?  Done (probably OR but I agree with the idea. Removed comment anyhow.)
• "The species was first introduced to North America in 1606 at Port Royal, Nova Scotia." - standalone sentence, merge into a paragraph  Done
• "The rock pigeon has a dark bluish-gray" - you can just use "it" here  Done
• "Homing pigeons, domestic Rock Pigeons" - are you missing an "and" or a semicolon (all I can think of) here?  Done (I just made it one)
• "The Rock Dove breeds" - again, use a consistent name (Rock Pigeon) Done
• The "Predators" section could easily all be one paragraph... Done
• "As shown by the high losses of racing pigeons to these predators" - is this part of the previous sentence? Done (it is now)
• "look very like the pure Rock Pigeons" - very much like?  Done (changed it} Sting au Buzz Me... 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll get to work on them. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the review. It was much appreciated. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry or butting in.....

I just tweaked the headings a bit so they match up with other bird GA/FAs. Taxonomy is good to have at the top as it pushes description down further past the taxobox so facilitates the ue of images further down the article....

I wasn't aware if the Rock Pigeon has any subspecies. If not, this should be noted as a one-liner in taxonomy section.

Overall, shaping up to be a pretty nice article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is looking much better. Thanks for your additions Casliber and Narayanese. You are certainly not butting in as Wikipedia is a combined effort. The Taxonomy and naming section makes the article look more scientific. Perhaps I should have nominated for FA instead of GA? Sting au Buzz Me... 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cas; always nice to have someone more knowledgeable than me :) You could go for FA now if you wanted to, Sting, but I dunno if it's ready...ask a specialist maybe :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No not yet. There are some things to do before that. Have a look at some other FAs but off the top of my head I'd add (as well as the subspecies issue):

• taxonomy - what's it related to within the genus Columba

• egg dimensions

• I'd consider Domestic Pigeon a sub article rather than a separate one, so a very brief sumary alluding to pigeon use, breeds, racing etc. should be in the article. Bit more than what is in now. Bit more in health or somehwere how they crap over everything maybe...

• Courtship and mating displays? See how other bird FAs have behaviour section wiht reproduction and diet within it. Actually the 2nd last para in description would go into there, and the last...not sure.

I'll think of some more and post a note on birds wikiproject. It isn't too far off, but going to FA with it not as polished as possible is courting disaster. Once all content in, then it will need another lookover for copyediting. I'll keep a look in as FAs are really fun to work up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll continue to work on the article but other stuff to do today. Thanks for the advice :-) Sting au Buzz Me... 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there's no hurry. Best in between noms rather than running 'round like a headless chook when at FAC...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok saying "chook" was a dead giveaway that you are an Aussie ;-) I like your work by the way. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As food

For GA, all you need is broad coverage. For FA, you need comprehensiveness. That in mind, the article is completely missing a section on the hunting/raising of the species for food (usually called squab as a meat, sort of like lamb is for sheep). If you're looking to go for FA, you need to create an "As food" section. VanTucky 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Domestic Pigeon article is better place for that. The species as found in the wild is not processed into squab as the domesticated utility breeds are. Mention of hunting for food already made in predators section. Just had another thought. Would the predators section be better named as "Predation"? Sting au Buzz Me... 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Subspecies

There are 12 subspecies of this species, according to Pigeons and Doves, I'll add them in the next few days as time permits, Jimfbleak (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What about closely related species like the Hill Pigeon and Snow Pigeon? No probably not I guess? C.livia will forage alongside the Hill pigeon from what I've read. I wouldn't be surprised if they could interbreed? But that's just opinion on my part. I'm looking for a picture of the Hill Pigeon if anyone has one? Sting au Buzz Me... 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Feral and domestic pigeons

There is absolutely no need to expand on what a domestic pigeon is on the Rock pigeon article. Following the Domestic pigeon link will explain what it is. The Rock pigeon article is rated GA. Please don't stuff it up by going on about differences in colours etc in the article when that information is clearly found at the other articles. Have you actually read the article? See the sections on Domestication and Feral pigeons? Go read them and add info there if you like. A lot of work was put into this article by people who actually know about the subject. The external link section can be done without as that pdf link is unnecessary.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and what is "irridescece"? It's a new one on me!--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to provide a reliable source for males having more iridescence on the neck? I bet you can't. This is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. People who have absolutely no idea about the subject trying to add information.--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Above copied from User talk:Richard New Forest)

Ah, apologies for tpyo. Otherwise I don't think I have messed up anything.

Yes, I have read the article, and in fact some of the previous work was done by me. I agree (as I said above) that little needs to be included about feral and domestic pigeons in this article. However, it does already mention them, rightly, to make it clear that the others are derived from the wild species. I felt that as it stood there were several places (GA or not) which were confusing:

• "The domestic pigeon is this species". This sounds as if there are no wild ones, defining the whole species as the domestic pigeon. It needs to be clear that domestic pigeons are only part of the species. "A form of this species" would do.
• "Rock Pigeons are pale grey with two black bars on each wing". As other parts of the article talks about all three, this makes it look as if all are this colour and pattern. It could however be covered more succinctly than I did by changing to "Wild Rock Pigeons...".
• "Males and females are similar in appearance". The article does clarify the differences later (including the iridescence, which is referenced), but my feeling is that it's tidier and more consistent if the differences are at least implied here. "Similar" doesn't really mean "the same", but some might read it as such. How about "There are few visible differences between males and females."?
• "the Rock Pigeon has been introduced to cities around the world." This makes it look like the wild type.
• "The species is abundant". Likewise. Perhaps there are areas where the wild ones are common, but not in Europe, and the figures in the same sentence cannot be the wild European population.
• I'm not sure either way about the external link. It does include some useful info, and good photos, but perhaps not enough to justify inclusion. It was a good faith edit though, and I think deleting it did need explanation.
• Other changes were typo corrections.

--Richard New Forest (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to change to "Wild Rock Pigeons". This article is about the wildtype species. Narayanese has made some fixes (thanks) but in my opinion the ref for males having more iridescence is quite simply wrong. Cornell ref or not it's still worded wrong. Both cocks and hens genetically have the same amount of neck feathers and as such the same amount of iridescence. Cocks when courting hens inflate their crops giving an optical illusion of having more iridescence. But I would be happy with few visible differences between males and females (apart from courting behavior which is visible). The species is abundant in the wild. They have capitalized on mans grain growing and spread allover to feed on our crops. From accounts I have been given the species is common in Europe (out in fields etc). That's not talking about what are regarded as ferals hanging around the cities. There are separate articles for Domestic pigeons and Feral pigeons, so the excess was trimmed from this article long before. If you had been watching this article from previous edits you have done you would have seen the changes no? So no need to put it back there. If people want to read about the other types they are directed to their main articles. As for that external link! Quite frankly it is crap. Poorly written and researched info added by 195.5.90.182 that in my opinion doesn't help to improve this article. The pdf file also takes ages to load if you happen to be on dialup. It definitely wasn't worth the long wait! I was the second person to remove the external link. That was two editors saying they didn't want it there (see WP:CONSENSUS). I'm going to remove the external link and the external link section again as I believe it is of poor quality and the article looks much better without it.--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I could only find sites sayes the sexes differ in iridescence, and a search for inflation being the reason didn't turn up anything. I don't have access to zoology publications, mind. One could play safe though and leave it at saying males and females look quite alike. I can't say anything about how good the content in that external link was, since it wouldn't load for me.

Another thing: don't add unique content to the lead, it is supposed to be a summary. Narayanese (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. I was talking only about the phrase: "Rock Pigeons are pale grey with two black bars on each wing". As the article is about the whole species, this could be taken to mean that all members of the species are this colour, which is incorrect. I was suggesting making it clearer by changing it to "Wild Rock Pigeons are pale grey with two black bars on each wing" – then it is saying nothing about the other types.

It may may possibly be right about the difference in iridescence being an illusion, though I'm sure I've noticed the difference (in feral birds) when the male was not displaying. If it is indeed right, I think we need a ref for that too, as it's contrary to what we already have.

Having contributed to the article previously does not make it compulsory to watch every edit. It has improved a lot (and from what I can see that's largely down to you, Sting), but that does not mean that no more improvements are possible. We never reach perfection on Wikipedia...

Yes, Columbia livia is common in Europe in fields as well as cities, but no, those are not wild birds but feral ones. It's very hard to find truly wild birds – I've seen them a few times on remote rocky coasts in Wales and Ireland, and they are noticeably different (very shy indeed, all uniformly wild-type pattern). I believe similar populations also occur in some mountainous areas of mainland Europe. However, most rocky coast populations (for example here in southern England) are feral birds, and so are the birds found in the general countryside – feral birds are certainly not restricted to urban areas. There are also many actual domestic birds living wild – either lost homing pigeons or foraging dove-cote ones. (It might be worth clarifying the meanings of "feral" and "wild" in this context. Feral means living entirely wild, but derived from domestic stock. Wild means living wild, from stock which has never been domesticated.) There's no doubt that the very large numbers in the article do include the feral birds.

Yes, I'm happy with the removal of the external link – I think the size of the PDF is enough reason anyway. It would still have been polite to the contributor to give a reason for the original deletion (it wasn't obviously deliberate spam, as suggested by Raven in Orbit).

Narayanese – I don't understand your edit and comment about the phrase "the feral form of the Rock Pigeon has been introduced to cities around the world". You removed "the feral form" (which I had added), and said "this was just wrong, you must have forgotten there are domestic pigeons". I hadn't forgotten them – but how are they relevant? The phrase without my addition effectively says that wild Rock Pigeons have been deliberately introduced, which is wrong. What has actually happened is that domestic pigeons have gone wild in cities (there may also have been colonisation of feral birds from city to city). Either way there was no deliberate introduction, and the birds are not wild Rock Pigeons. So my amended phrase is also wrong – it ought to read something like: "feral Rock Pigeons have become established in cities around the world". --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm it was the domestic form that was introduced... why would one introduce wild/feral doves? An saying Rock Pigeon does not automatically the mean wild-stock birds, so the current sentence is correct. Narayanese (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wild birds have been deliberately introduced to very many places all over the world. For instance: Red Kite, Great Bustard, Ring-necked Parakeet, Canada Goose to England; Starling, House Sparrow, Indian Mynah to US; Blackbird, Greenfinch, Goldfinch to New Zealand; etc, etc. So it would not be at all surprising for wild birds to have been introduced, for whatever obscure reasons.

This article is about the species as a whole, but the feral and domestic types are dealt with in more detail in other articles. If we are talking about those in this article, we need to make clear when we do not mean the wild ones. The current sentence is not literally incorrect – but it is misleading, and therefore it is not correct either. The straightforward interpretation of the sentence as it stands is that wild Rock Pigeons were deliberately introduced, and that needs clarification. --Richard New Forest (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to agree with what gets written in books sometimes. I think I need to add this because ornithology books invariably get written by people who just copy down what went before. The statement that all wildtype (and you really need to understand the concept of wildtype) are blue with black bars is true. But you need to understand that wildtype is the nominate species. You need to understand mutations from wildtype. Was the chequered (English spelling) pattern the first to mutate from the bar pattern? When did it do that? Was it after domestication (10,000 BCE) or was it before? Where there cheq' marked varieties present in wild genepools when man (that's us) decided to come along and declare the barred rock dove (now pigeon) as the nominate species? There were from what I've been told. Can't find a source for that though? Cheq' pattern would appear to be more common than bar if you look at the ferals in the park. That's understandable as Cheq' is dominant to bar. Darwin (Charlie) considered the barred pattern to be the original type. A fellow called Charles Whitman (American professor of zoology , University of Chicago 1892-1910) argued that Darwin was wrong. His reason being he could get barred squabs from checkered (his spelling) parents but never check squabs from two barred parents. Works that way in my loft too. Simple Mendelian genetics. So his thoughts and he managed to convince others at the time was that cheq' preceded bar and if you follow that reasoning then chequer could not be considered a "domestic gene" (I prefer domestic mutation there but just following what the book : Origins and Excursions in Pigeon Genetics by W.F. Hollander) says. Anyhow I could go on and on about this subject and get into different pattern markings and their genetic symbols but my point is that when referring to the "Wild" Rock pigeons markings it would be much better to just say that the "nominate" species is pale gray with two black bars etc. But since "Rock pigeon" is the nominate species there is no need at all to add the word "Wild". It is misleading and in fact untrue, because in the wild, varieties with different markings "can" be found. Please drop the word "Wild" from the description.--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that chequered pattern is more common in feral pigeons (and my impression is that it's becoming almost ubiquitous in parts of London, where I most often see large numbers). However this does not mean it is the wild type, just a genetically dominant type. There are many examples of domestic species mostly or wholly showing a characteristic that is absent in their wild relatives: long mane in horses, small size in donkeys, yaks and cattle, single coat in pigs, long tail in sheep, etc etc. These characteristics have either been bred for, or have become frequent by mechanisms such as the founder effect or the release of selection pressure against them; feral populations of these species often maintain such differences. Incidentally, wild-type genes are not by any means always genetically dominant.

Charles Darwin (the greatest scientist ever) became an expert in pigeon breeding, as he did in most things he turned his mind to. However, he did not know about Mendelian genetics, so his opinion could not be more than a guess. (Incidentally, as I recall Mendel did not agree with Darwinism – so not all great scientists are right all the time...) It's worth remembering that wild populations of most species (and certainly all other wild pigeons and doves I know of) are relatively uniform in appearance; significant variation such as you describe is normally a characteristic of populations with at least some admixture of domestic genes.

So I'm sure it's correct that all wild Rock Pigeons are grey with wing-bars, not just the nominate subspecies. Your phrase "in the wild, varieties with different markings can be found" is true when applied to feral birds. These are indeed living "in the wild" – but they are feral (see definition I gave previously), not truly wild in the sense of the phrase we are discussing. In the subspecies descriptions in the article, none of the wholly wild ones is described as having anything other than the nominate pattern – the only variations in these are darker and lighter shades, and the presence or degree of contrast of the white back. So if you can find evidence that there are non-feral wild populations with other patterns, then yes, the phrase should be changed (and the subspecies list amended of course). Until then, the ref for the subspecies list is also a ref for the phrase as it stands. --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a reason why "Rock Pigeon" is capitalized throughout the article? Seems like it shouldn't be. Alvis (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a "proper name" i.e. see WP:NAME.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite accurate. I don't agree that it's a proper noun, which is the name of a place, person, book or other single thing – perhaps even the name of an individual Rock Dove (see Proper noun). The current convention on Wikipedia (see lower down on the WP:NAME page: WP:Naming conventions#Animals, plants, and other organisms) is for common names of organisms not to be capitalised, except birds (and a few other groups). However, this is an open topic of discussion on WP, and conventions elsewhere vary – I think capitalisation of such ordinary nouns looks messy and untechnical in English, but that's a personal opinion and many others disagree. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Not being used as ordinary nouns. Proper names. You must have missed it? Anyhow, just agree to disagree I guess? Changing to "rock pigeon" throughout the article would look messy (and incorrect) not vice versa.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did notice you said "proper name", but I think you really meant "proper noun". The proper name article is obscure (to say the least), but as far as I can understand it, it seems to be about the philosphical aspects of correct names for things, not about the grammatical aspects of words used for things, which is what nouns are. I would not suggest changing "Rock Pigeon" to "rock pigeon" against the current WP convention – though in my view the convention would be better changed. It's a matter of arbitrary convention (not really correctness), and I think caps for vernacular species names goes against the general convention for non-proper nouns in English. If this was the German WP, all Nouns would have capital Initials – that looks most odd in English, and is how "Rock Pigeon" looks to me. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is following the convention set by WP:BIRD. Per WP:MOS, that's completely appropriate. MeegsC | Talk 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to reawaken this one, but is this an Australian thing? I've never heard of capitalizing a common name. Would you say, "The zoo is getting three Zebras"? Consider also Petrophassa. Dove and bronzewing pigeons are not capitalized, Chestnut-quilled Rock Pigeon is sort of capitalized, and Rock Pigeon is completely capitalized. Over at Snow Leopard the article has two caps, but the name in the header "snow leopard" has none. -Selket ^Talk 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

merge with feral pigeon

Should we not merge feral pigeon as a subsection of this article? It's the same species! Why fragment the content on the same species?--Sonjaaa (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Same reason that we have chicken, domestic goose, domestic turkey. They are dealing with completely different aspects. Feel free to raise this proposal at WP:BIRDS, but my guess is that the conscious decision to separate the articles will not be readily reversed jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with a strong no to any merge. The articles are now stand alone and as per Jimfbleak have completely different aspects.--Sting Buzz Me... 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to bat-smg:Balondē (suoda)

This interwiki link goes to a village that happens to be called "pigeon". But everytime I remove it I get reverted by various bots. Narayanese (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Falsely Associated

I am a little concerned that inserting the word "falsely" in the section on human health may violate the NPOV policy. I mean, I do believe that pigeons are not as much of a health risk as they are commonly believed to be but emphasizing the falseness of this belief seems to be edging toward editorializing rather than neutral presentation of facts. Does anyone else have a feeling about this? --Onorio (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The source used seems on the shaky side of things. Narayanese (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Flying Rat

shouldn't there be any thing about calling them Flying Rat in the article? I typed it in and it redirected me here.

This article concerns itself with the rock pigeon. Rock pigeons existed long before they were domesticated by mankind. The birds which Woody Allen so unfortunately referred to as "Flying Rats" are feral pigeons--they were once domesticated but have now returned to a feral state. It'd be appropriate to put a reference to "Flying Rats" in the article on Feral Pigeons and I think there is a reference already there. Maybe the redirect should be changed.--Onorio (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts: Pigeons were brought here for dinner. They freed themselves from bondage without so much as a "Let my people go!". Well done, those critters! More to the point: Pigeons were never barnyard fowl like chickens and ducks and geese. They were provided with a (commonly quite elegant) cote and given reason to come back after a daily routine of flying about scavenging food with fairly good success. The cote was a shelter consistent with need and taste, a place for sheltered nests and so on. Squabs were "harvested" by cote-owners, and natural selection combined with reliable shelter to favor birds that reproduced more frequently (ferals will reproduce year-round given sufficient calories; "wild" pigeons only during spring & summer). 45.47.202.62 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Invasive Species

In the categories at the bottom of the page, the Rock Dove is listed under Invasive Animal Species, yet I see no mention of this in the article, nor do I see any sources in the category page for listing the Rock Dove as an invasive species. Is this an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.36.175 (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

distribution map?

What's the meaning of the colors in the distribution map? 72.14.165.102 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dark red: approximate native range. Light red: introduced non-native populations. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rock dove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/panoramalofts/gchf08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rock dove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birdsisaw.com/bis/bird.aspx?q=15
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amonline.net.au/factSheets/rock_dove.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/epi/epi-pigeon.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birds.cornell.edu/programs/urbanbirds/about/ubs_PIWWhyStudyEN.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)