Talk:Ivory-billed woodpecker

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Additional suggestions for improvements

message: 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  and add a photograph of a juvenile (Such as this one  ) Finally, I would add some sdditional information off of Cornell Lab of Ornithology's site: . Shall I make these changes? Dysalatornis (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  link at the top.</br> 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)
thread_title: Suggestions for improvements

message: that link does not work. Kingturtle 07:20 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
:Which link? I added  and  and they both work? Dave.Dunford 15:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: 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)
thread_title:  arkansas claims 

message: :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)
thread_title:  "Lord God bird" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conservation 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Confusing Sentence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Size comparison

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I was about to make the same suggestion. --Cotinis 13:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rediscovery" or "Possible Rediscovery"?

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, I'm in the process of fixing these. SP-KP 18:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now only fix the two DOI refs and it should be good to go. Rlevse 19:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, Done - I think - check these last two please, they proved tricky! SP-KP 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job, if this were part of a wikiproject, I'd make it A-class. Rlevse 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sufjan Stevens song title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2007 update needed? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps (on hold)

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Delist

message: 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)
thread_title:  My One of the Many Credible IBWO Sightings 

message: The link in the citation is broken. I looked up the status through the IUCN website, and found where the page is now , but I don't know how to put it in the citation. Cadwaladr (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now been fixed. First Light (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: IUCN link

message: 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)
replies: text: Please see if :File:PileatedIvoryWoodpecker.svg helps. Shyamal (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, thanks! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs)  04:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help End the Debate 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lowery Photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ivory-billed woodpecker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://aou.org/persp1231.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726062314/http://fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/Reports/Board%20Report%20Spring%202007.htm to http://fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/Reports/Board%20Report%20Spring%202007.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ivory-billed woodpecker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060615073921/http://birdersworld.com:80/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=471 to http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=471
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060712043621/http://www.birds.cornell.edu:80/publications/birdscope/Summer2002/ivory_bill_absent.html to http://birds.cornell.edu/publications/birdscope/summer2002/ivory_bill_absent.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090302195604/http://web.mac.com:80/lrbevier/ivorybilled/Overview.html to http://web.mac.com/lrbevier/ivorybilled/Overview.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726062314/http://fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/Reports/Board%20Report%20Spring%202007.htm to http://fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/Reports/Board%20Report%20Spring%202007.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121001161752/http://www.npr.org:80/programs/asc/archives/asc88/ to http://www.npr.org/programs/asc/archives/asc88/#stevens
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 04:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ivory-billed woodpecker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726062314/http://fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/Reports/Board%20Report%20Spring%202007.htm to http://fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/Reports/Board%20Report%20Spring%202007.htm
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 06:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: copy edit Fsjgbdfhbhsbghbdfdjsbgjdb (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ivory-billed woodpecker. 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/20110720015855/http://web1.audubon.org/science/species/watchlist/profile.php?speciesCode=ivowoo2 to http://web1.audubon.org/science/species/watchlist/profile.php?speciesCode=ivowoo2
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) 06:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm hearing that nobody cares. WilyD 08:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Worth saving expeditions stuff 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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?:  Not R (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post 1944 first pass 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  (North) American Ivory-billed woodpecker 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Breeding biology vs. Description 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Youtube video discussing this article by ornithologist Alison Styring 

message: Published in Scientific Reports last month, here .  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)
thread_title: Another Collins Paper

message: 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)
thread_title:  Territory estimate of 9.7 sq miles.  Source? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flight like a duck 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ivory billed woodpecker 

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Follow IUCN or USFWS? 

message: 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."
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The USFWS ruling is not final

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Woody Woodpecker 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding Natureserve as a source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New paper with photos in pre-print 

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

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