Talk:Eagle

message: Can someone explain to me the origin of Haliaeetus (with two 'e's), as opposed to haliaetus (Pandion)? I understand hali- refers to fishing and aetos is Greek for "eagle" (like in chrysaetos, spizaetus, circaetus, gypaetus, etc). But why the second 'e'? Matters are further complicated by the fact that some people write (say) Pandion haliaeetus, and others Haliaetus albicilla. What gives? Tjunier 14:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I suspect it is just a quirk of what the first author of the name used. MPF 22:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Haliaeetus is "correct" in the Greek sense. haliae is sea, etus eagle. The reason Pandion haliaetus is missing an e is because taxonomists' tradition allows a species' discoverer to name the species any way they like, and apparently this one made a mistake. — I cannot remember where I read this, nor even if it was online or in a book, so I can't provide a reference for this. Sorry. — Timwi 15:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Haliaeetus spelling

message: Was John Ray's name change really that of Aquila chrysaetos?  It would make more sense in context for him to have changed "erne" to "White-Tailed Eagle".  —JerryFriedman 17:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: John Ray name

message: I was curious as to why Haast's eagle was left out of the list, even though it's extinct.  It had a wingspan of 2.6 metres and could weigh up to 20 kilos, so I'd say it was a fairly significant species.
: The wikipedia lists extant or very recently extinct bird species, there is a separate list of extinct birds, where you will find this eagle.jimfbleak 06:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such species as a Harris Eagle, whatever the sign says. The species shown is unmistakeable, it is a Harris Hawk, Parabuteo unicinctus. The chestnut legs and wings are diagnostic. If there is no article, I'll write one, and move the picture, but it might be a few days jimfbleak 19:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Haast's Eagle]] 

message: Hi. I've been working on the Crowned Eagle page extensively today. I noticed that on that page as well as this one, it had been classified as Harpyhaliaetus coronatus. This, quite plainly, is erroneous. The eagle in question goes by the scientific name Stephanoaetus coronatus. Strangely, next to that scientific name on this page, I encounter "Crowned Hawk-Eagle". Again, erroneous. I hereby amend the eagle page to get rid of "Crowned Hawk-Eagle" and correct the Crowned Eagle's taxonomy to Stephanoaetus. Thank you.
TydeNet 08:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eagles are generally very large birds, mainly in the Old World. Hawk depends where you live. In North America it can be applied to a broad range of birds of prey, in the Old World it's restricted to the Sparrowhawk and its relatives jimfbleak 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong scientific name

message: Hi, a city slicker by nature I had the opportunity this weekend to visit a freind's riverside Nebraska cabin.  There I witnessed several pair of bald eagles flying a few hundred feet in the air, pairing off, locking talons and freefalling together.  My friend said this is how they mate, can anybody corroberate this?
Skeptical to the end,
the iceman 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a breeding display, they don't actually copulate in the air! jimfbleak 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagle Mating?

message: This doesn't explain the difference in an Eagle and Hawk.  What is it?  I've always wondered.  Perhaps this should be added to the article.Rlevse 15:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagle and Hawk

message: I took this in the natural history museum in Bergen, Norway. I forget what species it is, but you are welcome to use this PD photo. Adam 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a Golden Eagle, heavily bleached by the sun. jimfbleak 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I'd be happier with a source for this section, sounds made up on the hoof to me. Why do they compare eagles with Christian religious symbols? Certifiable tribes - seems like the old apartheid classifations to me, does it really exist today? jimfbleak 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagles as religious objects

message: This is a vulture, not an eagle! Sabine's Sunbird  talk 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed image 

message: What is the largest bird of prey in Ontario Canada ?  The Golden Eagle? Octopus-Hands 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey Vulture is bigger]] jimfbleak 05:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider a TV to be a scavenger bird, rather than a bird of prey, but I do notice the article includes Buzzards !?  Octopus-Hands 21:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the NAm eagles take carrion too - and buzzards refers to Buteos rather than TVs jimfbleak 05:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the articles here, most Golden Eagles are bigger than most Turkey Vultures in length and wingspan, and probably all are heavier.  —JerryFriedman 06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest ??

message: Would it make sense to hive off the culture/religion bit, either as a stand-alone or merged with eagle (heraldry)? jimfbleak 16:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: It would be great to know which of the taxonomic changes are from Lerner and Mindell and which are from Collinson (cited in the article).  Those from Lerner and Mindell should probably be mentioned with "the authors of this study argue" or some such, as we know other taxonomists will come along and change everything again.  —JerryFriedman 06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomic changes

message: The whole article was deleted.  Does anyone think this was vandalism, or just a mistake?  I am afraid I do not know how to recall something from the history, or I would have already fixed it.  Would somebody please tell me how and I would be happy to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this vandalism? 

message: I don't know the real average weight of eagles (should be between 3 and 6 kilograms according to other websites), but certainly isn't 900kg!
I'm also not sure if this is the proper way to signal the issue.
Tripleshift 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually talking about the nest, not the bird, but I've removed anyway since unsourced and untypical, jimfbleak 17:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagle's weight 900kg?

message: what do you call a female eagle? whats a falcon? what do you call eagles chics? anything on eagles as messengers? --ചള്ളിയാന്‍ 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's linked to its definition. jimfbleak 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: gender

message: I was wondering, why isn't the Iron Eagle mentioned in this article, under either national symbols or organizational symbols? Or would it be mentioned elsewhere? --DameGreyWulf 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi Germany

message: this article is a real mess, but I've removed some of the unsourced, POV, trivial or misplaced. ASAIK, all the US organisational stuff, even if notable,  actually relates to the Bald Eagle, not eagles in general Jimfbleak (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidy

message: that eagles can be vey dangorise  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.201.53 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  eagles 

message: eagle nest can be any way some eagle dont even have a nest some of baby eagle come alive thats it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.201.53 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  eagle nest 

message: It's interesting to note that there are no huge forest eagle known to live in the dense forests of Southeast Asia (excluding the Philippines), do you think this has something to do with the presence of clouded leopards ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfinmako (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forest eagle 

message: If most of the eagles live in Eurasia and Africa and there are more than 60 species ( this implies less then 70), How can there be 37 species in Australia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicer5 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, simple logic dictates that "most of the eagles" can be close to 60 rather than 30. Lets say there are 48 species in Eurasia and 44 species in Africa. A single type can be living in more than one habitat. Though i am just thinking analytically based on nothing solid. But more importantly the opening paragraph does not say suggest anything close to what you object, hence faulty question.Maviozan (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy in opening paragraph

message: i've just received an e-mail that has informed me that eagles can live up to seventy years old. the pics were mostly the bald eagle. it did however mention that at the ripe old age of forty that the eagle goes through a life and death transition. somehow because of it's length of years thus far, it's beak has become too curved to be of any use and it's talons have become too long to be effective. i'm told at this point the eagle has a life and death situation on it's hands, if you will. i'm told that the eagle will at this point, if he or she desires to live, that they fly to the highest point in a mountain or similar habitat and they dash their beaks on the rock until it is removed. when their beaks grow back they take to yanking out their talons and then wait for new ones to grow. after this they start to pluck any old feathers that hinder them from flying which often happens with older birds with their heavy plumage. i know it sounds ridiculous but really, is this all true? curious in ontario
......AND I'M CURIOUS TOO!! ..IN SWITZERLAND!! PLEASE CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME IF IT'S TRUE???????
:It is clearly a hoax and misinformation. Eagles can not extend their life-spans twice as much on will. Plus they are not bears so they can not survive hunger and thirst for 5 months.Maviozan (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm having trouble with the first paragraph. It talks about the eagles without actually defining them. I know that there is a problem with the eagles as a group, but you can't write an article without defining what you're writing about.
221.222.123.223 (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that they are large birds of prey, is that sufficient definition? Pelagic (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is an eagle? 

message: Gandaberunda is not Eagle as mentioned in Article.
It is a mythological bird & definitely have no relation with Eagle.
I recomend to remove this.
Teju2friends (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandaberunda is not Eagle 

message: The usage of  is up for discussion, see talk:Eagles (band) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagles

message: I was looking up something about eagles a while ago, and it struck me that there were many articles which say "such-and-such is a booted eagle, having feathered tarsi", but nothing linked to explain the significance of this. 
In one case, there was even a blue-link to the Booted Eagle, rather than to some group of booted eagles. 
So I started my first-ever article draft. But as I started to research the concept, I realized that having a page for booted eagles might also require creating ones for harpy and sea-eagles. And they'd end up with just stubs of text and more species lists that would get out-of-step with all the other pages having genera and species lists.  So hence the idea of explaining the group concepts in the main Eagle page. 
Perhaps one day the taxonomy will be settled and we will have stable pages for Aquilinae, Harpiinae, and Haliaeetinae.  But much of Wikipedia's raptor coverage still places them together in Buteoninae (though there is a frustrating inconsistency).  Meanwhile, real-world authors are writing that there are four "types of eagles": booted, fish, harpy and snake. (I wonder, does this come from a single, influential source like HBW, or is it such a natural grouping that many have come to the same conclusion independently?) 
Anyway, now we have section anchors that we can link to from other pages; I hope people find it helpful. 
Pelagic (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eagle groups 

message: I request to add a species of eagle that is missing from the eagle subject page Ryguybug4176 (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which species do you wish to add? Do you have a citation? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 03:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved WP:SNOW closure.   Calidum 14:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Examples beyond the first landing on an extra terrestrial body include the Eagle Nebula and the Roman eagle, along with the symbols derived from it such as the Double-headed eagle. BilledMammal (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

text: *Turkeys have been around for about 20 million years, but they aren't even sufficiently primary to make Turkey a disambiguation page. (While this is likely to be closed as a WP:SNOW, I just wanted to point out that age isn't a good argument for primacy) BilledMammal (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sure, but the usage of "turk" in the context of the country is much older than the bird. I don't think that's the same case here. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 December 2021 

message: This section of the article seems like WP:UNDUE trivia and WP:RECENTISM. I suggest that although drones have become an interesting technology in the last decade, the relationship between drones and eagles has no long-term notability and doesn't belong in an article about eagles. Drones will probably be part of the future in some form, but we don't know how they will relate to eagles in the long term. Probably, drones will eventually be designed to minimize their interference with birds, but that is conjecture and doesn't really belong in an article about a particular family of birds. Neither does some experimental use of eagles by a few police forces (since discontinued by two out of three of the identified police forces). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Usage against drones"