Talk:Philippine eagle

message: Can somebody improve the "Relationship With Humans" section? I am not sure what the author meant. Is it about the way captive Philippine Eagles imprint their caretakers as surrogate mates? That would be an interesting section. The current one talks only about presidential proclamations, certainly not about relationship with humans.
--------  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneWithTheDeerOnIt (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with humans

message: The 'unique evoltutionary history' section really needs paraphrasing. It is mostly an exact copy of the cited source, and is, like the source, poorly written. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already paraphrased the section.--Lenticel (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-plagiarism 

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

message: -synonyms?
-Description- 2 refs
-expand Diet?
-Drink?
-Conservation checkthrough
-more R w. humans Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do List 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests March 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Update: file deleted from commons. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests March 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Update: file deleted from commons. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Philippine Eagle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

message: Other than measurements meant to claim largest, longest and other superlatives, there seem to be no standard morphometrics for wing bill etc.  These need to be filled in with proper referencing. An old source for a few measurements below, others have been added to the article. Shyamal (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  A small warning: Just because someone published a standard does not necessarily mean it is followed by everybody or even the majority. A relatively well known (in ornithological circles) example is wing chord, where min., max. and over curve all are in use, and, at least among some US ornithologists, chord that has been flattened. A second problem is that some measurements can differ quite significantly depending on them being taken from live birds or long-dead specimens (see e.g., Prater, Marchant, & Vuorinen (1977). Identification and ageing of Holarctic waders. BTO Guide 17, Tring.). Consequently, if making direct comparisons based on measurements in different sources, it is quite important to check what standards the sources follow to see if they are directly comparable. At least more recent sources at higher levels usually mentions what standard they follow, either in the intro if a book, or in the methods section if a scientific paper. • Rabo³ • 12:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any basic ornithology text (eg: Gill) covers the measurements that are prescribed. Although it would appear to be very simple, there are problems when you look at specimens in the field or in the lab. (Depending on species there can be situations where one is confused whether to measure the outer edge, the inner edge, the longest feather, the middle feather, the last scale or the bend and so on. This is a cause of considerable variation, especially in the past (where hunters and others needed to make claims of having shot the biggest specimen etc. tiger skins for instance would be stretched between pegs to enhance results) and very often researchers are forced to go back to specimens to recheck published measures and then they are forced to use measures that show lower variability due to shrinkage or variability caused by method followed. The short answer is that there are published standards methods and published results based on a range of specimens and these are what Wikipedia policy supports apart from being the essence of scientific communication, otherwise we would just have to quarrel endlessly based on personal opinion. Shyamal (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard morphometrics

message: Okay, let's see what's out there....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web of Science search 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Philippine eagle. 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.manilatimes.net/national/2007/apr/29/yehey/weekend/20070429week2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a claim this eagle is largest by both size and wing span, there are mentions of 2 other heavier eagles.  The Wedge Tailed eagle is also listed on Wikipedia as being longer than this eagle by about 4cm.  
I guess i am suggesting that perhaps the statement about size should be cut back and remove the claim about length.   (Unless of course someone can actually back up the claims of the true 'longest' eagle)... Alex m baker (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philippine eagle. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090530010418/http://www.orientalbirdclub.org/publications/bullfeats/phleagle.html to http://www.orientalbirdclub.org/publications/bullfeats/phleagle.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67XrmQfv1?url=http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/theenvironmentreport/view.php?db=1&article=20070719-77631 to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view_article.php?article_id=77631
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified