Talk:Parrot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parrot article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Biology Portal Parrot is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit MAJOR taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae For new cat: Category:Natural history of the Americas, replace "Hummingbird" article (by Some collaboration, hopefully) an artcle: along title LINE of: Hummingbirds--the bird of the Americas

Parrot is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 Comment 1 2 Comment 2 3 Comment 3 4 Links? 5 Improvement needed 6 Article taxonomy 7 What is a parrot? or, Are cockatoos parrots? 8 Name change 9 Inappropriate Links 10 Parrot smarts 11 Arini 12 What's a parakeet? 13 Some missing parrots 14 Pronunciation 15 Feral Parrots 16 Evolution? 17 Link 18 Genius Bird 19 Aviculture WikiProject proposal 20 Merge True parrots here? 21 only those who know and kept parrots should remove links 22 Splitting out feral parrots

[edit] Comment 1

Quick question- are there any naturalized/established feral populations of Budies in the U.S.A.; I'm pretty sure almost everyone I know has either had their pet budgie escape when they were kids or their kids accidentally release their pet budgie- or both (thus, a pretty susstained released of budgies!). Any info on this? Thank you!Acalamari.

[edit] Comment 2

Who's Irene Pepperberg? Eclecticology, Monday, July 15, 2002

See http://web.media.mit.edu/~impepper/. -phma

[edit] Comment 3

The article mentions the fact that some species are threatened with extinction - in a sentence which begins with a reference to parrots' popularity as pets. This reflects a bias. No mention is made anywhere in the article of the effects of hunting for sport, food, and feathers, or the effect of habitat destruction, which are far greater threats to parrots than the pet industry ever was.

In fact, the entire paragraph discussing the endangered status of many parrots and the Tony Silva case should not have been placed under the heading, "Parrots as Pets," as this is also reflective of bias. More appropriate under that heading would be a discussion of parrots' care requirements in captivity, which is notably absent from the article.

--The pet trade has long been established as a critical melting point for avian populations. Omitting or prioritizing this information below any other form of population loss because you feel it has a certain bias is illogical. --EllisD 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Agree with EllisD. Pet harvesting has historically been more destructive than hunting for sport, food, or feathers, partly because if the other types of hunting were going to extinguish species, they already did so during prehistory, and partly because only pet hunting seems to involve chopping down nest trees to retrieve young, thus removing nest sites. That said, habitat destruction is the greatest threat to parrots in general. Brucemoko 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links?

Why is there no internal links on this page, to other wiki articles like there are on other articles?

[edit] Improvement needed

The entry is inconsistent and incomplete at present (obviously). After some sleep and (alas) a day at the office, I'll pay some more attention to it, and sort out an appropriate scheme of pages for the Psittaciformes as a whole, the Cactatuidae and the Psittacidae, adjusting the tables to suit. Anyone wants to add to it in the meantime, go right ahead. Tannin 18:42 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Article taxonomy

(From Talk:parrot (family))

Am I missing something? Is there a reason we have Parrot (family) and Parrot (order) at all? Why not just move them to Psittaciformes and Psittacidae. Then the disambig can point to those. I didn't do an extensive search, but it seems that using the taxonomic name as the real link is standard. If no one objects, I'll make the change later today. - UtherSRG 13:20, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:parrot (family) for why this won't happen. - UtherSRG 18:10, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What is a parrot? or, Are cockatoos parrots?

Contribute at Talk:Parrot#What is a parrot? or, Are cockatoos parrots? Nurg 09:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they are a type of a parrot; they have strong beaks and legs and they have two toes foreward and two toes backward on each foot, as do all parrots. Non-parrots have three toes foreward and one toe backward. However, cockatoos are not true parrots. True parrots and cockatoos are parrots. Snowman 11:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

cockatoos are parrots —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spat10 (talk • contribs).

That is why we are doing all this moving around KimvdLinde 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The change would be in line with the general rule that if there is a scientific name and a common name, that the scientific name should point towards the comone name. The old parrot page was linked to the Psittacidae, which is not inclusive of all parrots in general sence and that page has been moved to True parrots as that is how they are often called to distinguish the family from the order. KimvdLinde 02:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

there should be pictures of parrots on the parrot page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.35.207 (talk • contribs).

Working in it KimvdLinde 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Links

Two links were removed for either being overly partisan or having overly partisan titles. --Bhabing 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parrot smarts

Just came across this page, which mentions that parrots have relatively large brains compared to most other birds---and in fact, have a forebrain/body mass ratio in line with primates.

It's an interesting factoid, that could probably work its way into a new section in this article. --Iskunk 06:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arini

Miyaki et al "Parrot Evolution and Paleogeographical Events: Mitochondrial DNA Evidence" (MolBiolEvol15:544) suggests Arini should be split into at least 2 tribes (short- and long-tailed spp) or even subfamilies. It's a 1998 paper, so this may have been revised. Comments? Dysmorodrepanis 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, analysis by Astuti ("Sequence diversity and phylogenetic utility of nuclear RAG-1 gene in parrots") demonstrates that according to RAG-1 sequence data the fig-parrots, pygmy-parrots and hanging-parrots as well as Pesquet's deserve subfamily status. I would not agree with his non-monophyletic Loriinae and rather interpret the data as indication of a multi-tribe Loriinae (MP bootstrap of 64 for 2 subfamilies compared to NJ bootstrap of 99 for deeply-divided monophyly; names would probably be Loriini and Charmosynini). Astuti concludes that RAG-1 is a viable marker for psittaciform subfamily systematics, which seems fair enough to me given that the results can be integrated with previous data to result in a fine synthesis. Dysmorodrepanis 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A single published article is virtually never definitive in such matters, is it? I would lean towards taking Forshaw's (2006) "Parrots of the World" as the latest good measure of the consensus in the field. In any case he "suspects that further investigation will support an upgrading of Arini to subfamily level" (which implies it isn't yet to that stage), and doesn't suggest any splitting of the tribe yet. His listing of the tribes differs from what is currently on the wiki in Nestorini and Strigopini are tribes within a subfamily Strigopinae. Platycercini is a tribe of Psittacineae and not a subfamily of its own, ditto for Arini. On the other hand, he has Psittrichadinae as its own subfamily and not a tribe. --Bhabing 22:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be putting this up piece by piece this year (unfortunately, as info comes rather piecemeal. We have a good review of the fossil record, FWIW). As regards Forshaw, I agree with him on Arini (I suspect too, that is) and I think the literature for a fairly consistent picture of Strigops should exist. I'm wary of sinking the platycercines for reasons of biogeography. About Pesquet's, again, I think he's on spot but here we have not enough data IIRC.

The problem is the divergence of the Lorini vs the Psittacula branch vs the neotropic lineage. It must have happened in the Paleogene, and after the cockatoo ancestors (and quercypsittid ancestors for that matter) branched off. Linnean ranks tend to map rather nicely on Cenozoic "bouts" of radiation in birds, but here, we might have a more prolonged period of radiation from Australia. The platycercines are certainly crown-group, but they did not move one inch from the pasittaciform center of radiation (considering all evidence), and I think the data is too scant and too confusing as regards whether they're MUCH closer to the Afro-Asian lineage(s) than to the lories, or merely closer. Dysmorodrepanis 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW I've updated the section a bit as regards the spindlin paper. Figure 3 is a really really cheap trick and shouldn't have been done. Sampling was major, and their abysmal bootstrap values (see fig 1) should have been enough to leave it at that. Anything about the relationship of the major lineages (except the NZ guys) to each other is much more fiction than fact. But some conclusions (such as regarding nestorines/cockatoo, and lovebirds) are supported by beta-fibrinogen sequence data (here). Maybe we'll end up with Aridae, Loriidae, Cacatuidae, Psittrichatidae et after all. NZ lineages' distinctness must not be taken as sure-fire indication of an earlier divergence BTW. Moa molecular clocks run "odd" (there is genetic variation that does not map well onto the fossil record, both within and between lineages. And the fossil record is quite good in moa, and as opposed to what PAUP* spits out, it is evidence), and given the geological history of the region, successive episodes of genetic drift (due to population crashes in K-strategists) need to be considered. It would help to explain an amount of apomorphies in living parrots that is fairly at odds with the pseudasturids and quercypsittids... if the molecular data is taken for granted, "true parrot" morphology is an assembly of stem characters, evolving around the K-Pg boundary, and as far as anyone can tell, it most decidedly isn't. Unfortunately the paper is ignorant of the 2006 review of the fossil record of course, so basically the nice discussion the de Kloets did is, yeah well, so-so).

Also - and this is important - molecular phylognies suggest, they do not prove. Anything that PAUP* provides out is not evidence; it is a best-fit inference, and if material evidence like fossils and paleogeography suggest otherwise, the molecular phylogeny is wrong. What is evidence in molecular studies is the raw sequence data, not its interpretation. "Molecular evidence" did "prove" that the Passenger Pigeon was a cuckoo-dove (from Indonesia)... NO IT DIDN'T - it merely suggested a bogus phylogeny. See also Long-branch attraction for an related problem (which might be the underlying case in the pigeon study). Generally speaking, papers assuming a fixed-speed molecular clock need not to be taken seriously anymore as regards divergence times, it has been shown for birds in 2006. Anything coming out towards the end of 2007 (or after resolution of the issue, whetever comes last) and on, and the occasional older gem, remains standing. But the "standard model" of a fixed-speed molecular clock is by and large utterly refuted for birds by now. Note the present paper does not use calibration by material evidence, which should always set off the alarm. Dysmorodrepanis 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Any cladistic organization of the parrots is at best provisional. People don't even agree on what are separate species vs. subspecies. I've seen Amazona finschi woodi called a separate species from A. f. finschi, and also seen both lumped together as subspecies of Amazona Viridigenalis. It's far too early to settle on the One True Way. Brucemoko 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't simply lump alpha taxonomy with phylogenetics. The former's problems can be circumvented by placing species names in parentheses, such as done in Leaf warbler. For the example above, it would look like:

• A. viridigenalis
• A. finschii - sometimes included in A. viridigenalis
  • A. (finschii) woodi

Uncertainty in the latter area can only be resolved by meticulously comparing the available (total) evidence and and drawing conclusions based on the type of data available (e.g. the fossil record generally gives the most accurate data but not very complete; molecular analyses resolve many hitherto unresolvable problems but little is known yet on homoplasy, which in turn is most common but best-researched in morphological data etc. Biogeography is usually horribly under-considered in paleontology and is a two-edged sword because of the incompleteness of the fossil record; see e.g. Serendipaceratops for a single bone with potentially phylogeny-shattering consequences). Dysmorodrepanis 12:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we agree. I meant that fossil evidence is scarce (and may always be), genetic evidence is new, scarce, and not understood well yet, and species taxonomy is being questioned as well as systemics (which is what I should have said, but I write better some days than others).

Brucemoko 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's a parakeet?

The article uses this term for some small parrots, without defining it taxonomically or otherwise.

The distinction is not very clear, however "parakeet" generally refers to any smaller parrot with a long tail. I don't think it's a scientific classification. Some people use the word "parakeet" interchangably with budgerigar, however there are other parakeets besides the common budgie. Some, such as the Bourk's parakeet, definitely fall under the category; others, such as conures are debatable.

Mainly some Broad-tailed parrots and psittaculines. For Neotropic parakeets, the alternate name conure exists. Dysmorodrepanis 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

-- In common American usage, "parakeet" means only the budgerigar. This is not true elsewhere (or even among Americans who know much about parrots). In many places it means any small, slender parrot with a long tail; Australians tend toward not using the term and just calling them parrots.

This is why I don't understand the AOU officially calling conures "parakeets" and Amazons "parrots", replacig two very useful and specific terms with general/ambiguous ones.....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1) The AOU is not in charge of common-name nomenclature (it would like to be, but nobody is - that's why they're called common names). The US Fish & Wildlife Service still calls them conures; so does the British OU. 2)I can't understand it either. Amazons are a cohesive group from a single genus (Amazona). Calling them all "Parrot" instead of "Amazon" is just information hiding. I consider it confusing and stupid. 3)Conures are a diverse group of birds from many genera. Still, it at least did tell you they were American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brucemoko (talk • contribs) 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Some missing parrots

Great page! I just took a look, and found some important parrots (in the wild and as pets) missing though.

Psittacini >

• Genus Poicephalus >

• • Poicephalus gulielmi gulielmi
  • Poicephalus gulielmi fantiensis

• • Poicephalus gulielmi massaicus

All commonly known as Jardine's Parrots

Psittacini >

• Genus Poicephalus >

• • Poicephalus robustus robustus

• • Poicephalus fuscicollis suahelicus

• • Poicephalus fuscicollis fuscicollis

Commonly known as Cape Parrots (undergoing name change) for more info:

Poicephalus page of the African Parrot Society I'm not sure I know how to edit the main page, or I'd add them. TheBirdMan 07:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put up the pending split of the last 3, not linked because I am yet hunting for the original reference. As far as Jardine's is concerned, it is there, under Red-fronted Parrot. We use the Handbook of Birds of the World as a default reference (if no more up-to-date info is available) and this has sort of standardized the common names of birds. This is usually a good thing because many names were formerly used for different species whereas with each new volume of the HBW, the names used for bird species are unique. I'd personally have gone with Jardine's as there is also a Red-fronted Parakeet which some call "parrot", but what the heck.

So, when you now check out List_of_parrots_(family)#Tribe_Psittacini, you'll find these birds. They're redlinked, as no article exists yet. I suggest you start with the Red-fronted/Jardine's. Check out the WikiProject Birds for how to start bird articles and edit away! You should use the HBW "standard" name (Red-fronted Parrot) in the taxobox as it will be(come) the more common one among people who know not much about parrots, but you should mention Jardine's (in bold) in the article introduction as it is the "other" name (if there are two or three equally well-known names, they should all be mentioned in bold, just as here). Rueppell's Parrot is nice to look up syntax etc. Generally, consult the WikiProject page for all your needs.

Subspecies should usually be mentioned in the text/taxobox only, except when they're very important (either in general or to you) and there exists enough material unique to them to give them an own article (for example, see Dusky Seaside Sparrow - the Seaside Sparrow in general apparently is too boring yet to have a page...). If you have loads and loads of info, you might want to use my personal taxobox template here, but this is not really good for starting an article as it is sheer overload.

I will try to find out what the status of the Cape/"Un-Cape" Parrots is exactly, i.e. where the data has been published, and try to get a hold of it - from a quick'n'dirty lookup it appears that the 3 subspecies are best considered 3 good species (Cape, Brown-necked and Grey-headed) and FWIW I would heartily agree with that, but it is apparently not yet definite so I won't promise anything.

Have fun! Dysmorodrepanis 08:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it:

Massa R., M. Sarà, M. Piazza, C. Di Gaetano, M. Randazzo & G. Cognetti, (2000). A molecular approach to the taxonomy and biogeography of African parrots. Italian Journal of Zoology 67: 313-317 and

Wirminghaus et al. (2002) Taxonomic relationships of the subspecies of the Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus (Gmelin). Journal of Natural History, 2002, 36, 361–378 and

Perrin, M.R (2005). A review of the taxonomic status and biology of the Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus, with reference to the Brown-necked Parrot P. fuscicollis fuscicollis and the Grey-headed Parrot P. f. suahelicus Ostrich - Journal of African Ornithology, Volume 76, Numbers 3-4 pp. 195-205(11) and

Sohlms, L. Perrin, M.R., Downs, C.T., Symes, C.T. & Bloomer, P. DNA sequencing confirms the status of the Cape Parrot: Implications for its conservation status. Afr. Zool.

confirm that the Cape Parrot is a distinct (and endangered) species. The Brown-necked/Grey-headed, though distinct, were only separated some 18000 years ago and are not yet good species. Dysmorodrepanis 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good find on the Cape's! Here's more: poicephalus taxonomy I'll practice editing in the 'sandox' tonight. I would like to change the primary name of the Poicphalus Gulielmi from "Red-Fronted Parrot" to Jardine's. One problem with Forshaw and other scientic texts is that they will refer to a bird by its 'orginal' name even if that name has long fallen from widespread usage. I had a Jardine's for many years and was very active on the 'Jardine's owners and breeders list', I can attest with complete confidence that "Red Fronted Parrot" is not widely used. I'm not sure why it fell out of use - possibly because it's not a good description - it refers to the head coloring - not the whole bird. Here are some sites with pics and info on Jardine's. one two threeTheBirdMan 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a page for Psittacini, and some Wiki links, but am not sure how to add those boxes. I will write some more text, and add individual Poicephalus pages. I also sent an email to the Jardines / Capes list, as it has some of the most knowledgeble experts on these birds. Psittacini Page TheBirdMan 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Anyone care to add a pronunciation for Psittaciformes? Cburnett 17:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My father knows psittacines as (I don't know IPA): si-tass-ines. "si" as in "sick"; "tass" as in "tassel"; and "ines" as in "magazines". But that means I have no reference to back that up. Cburnett 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feral Parrots

Regarding "quaker" parrots: "Quaker parrot" is a common (pet trade) but incorrect name for Monk Parakeet. Need to remove the last line of this section referring to quakers as they are part of the earlier mentioin of feral monk parakeets.

-- The Monk Parakeet, aka Quaker Parrot, aka Quaker Parakeet, aka Grey-breasted Parakeet, aka Cliff Parakeet, has only one truly correct name: Myiopsitta monachus. Which of the others is "correct" is a matter of politics, and varies not only between languages but even between different English speaking countries. E.g., the two Amazon parrots next to me right now are generally called a Red-lored and a Mexican Red-head in the USA, but a Yellow-cheeked and a Green-cheeked in England. While it's good to be consistent within the article, I'd probably say "Monk (or Quaker)" the first time. It's more important to be helpful than to be politically correct. Brucemoko 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution?

This article is erroneous in its assertion that evolution is a proven fact, it is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.225.27.45 (talk • contribs).

I can't see anywhere on the article saying "evolution is a fact", I just see evolution being used in the article to explain the changes with time in the fossils we see in the rocks. So how do you propose to work your version of parrot development into the article? A comment on this Talk Page has no affect on the article unless you do it yourself - Adrian Pingstone 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, wait til I put up the latest review of parrot fossils. Evolution is a superior model to explain these weird and confusing finds, even though they're few and far between. The alternative would be that somehow and for some reason, a benign and monistic deity should have caused half-parrot-owl-nightjarish things to spring into existence, only to kill them off by climate change. I'm completely open to seriously discuss alternate theories to evolution, but it's a matter of wearing the shoes that fit best. Dysmorodrepanis 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

I was wondering if it would be possible for my website which is Parrot related and has common goals and resources regarding parrots. Would it be at all possible for a link to my website from your parrot articles page.

Priceless Parrots

My site is http://www.pricelessparrots.com/

Please do have a look and see what you think, I would be interested in placing some articles on your site also. Please do consider me for a link, I will of course place a link to your website from mine. I run my website all on my own and really do need any high rank website links i can get, but i am being honest and picking good quality websites. I love the site with a wealth of information available to all. keep up the good work

Paul Hallissey paul@pricelessparrots.com

I have looked at your website which I thought was good. I am going to make a link to it on the main parrot page. I think that at the present time, a link to your website is a useful addition to the wiki, but if any adverts were added to your website (or too many adverts) then the link might have to be deleted from the wiki. I am working on the aviculture pages. You might like to see the page Category:aviculture. I am hoping that this corner of the wiki will expand. I am thinking about starting a wiki Aviculture project page. Do you have any nice pictures of parrots, that you would be prepared to give (with an open copyright) to the wiki. Some parrot species pages do not have an image, and some could have more images - perhaps of the chicks and nesting boxes. Snowman 11:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that the link has been removed by a bot because the wiki does not allow advertising. Snowman

[edit] Genius Bird

I've read comments on "Genius Bird" by User:BorgQueen who unilaterally deleted the link (something she's received many complaints about) and find them unwarranted by the policies she cited. The addition to Parrot was entirely within the scope of the sections on intelligence and mimickry. --68.221.0.226 14:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got only one complaint (from you) but I am not going to remove it if you add the link back. If the consensus agrees it will stay. --BorgQueen 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviculture WikiProject proposal

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture. The purpose of this project is to help increase the amount and quality of content related to aviculture on wikipedia, and to maintain and organise articles relating to the subject, eventually bringing as many as possible up to good- or featured-article status. Snowman 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge True parrots here?

Set up merge. Reasons: page to be merged is an awkward stub, as everything that could be said there and more is being said here. This is not going to change I think. I suggest to merge the page as follows (expand at will):

• add gallery representing the different lineages of Psittaciformes here
• brief (1-2 sentences) disclaimer in header that this Psittacidae are also treated here, and that information specific to Cacatuidae is explicitly remarked thus.
• Check article; annotate any cockatoo-specific info that is missing
• Update taxobox with lower-level taxa. I'd suggest to adopt the 2-subfamily model from the list, with a disclaimer linking to the systematics. So we'd have both models on one page.

Dysmorodrepanis 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• This article should not be merged because this article includes cockatoos, which are not true parrots.

165.248.15.16 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, per proposal by Dysmorodrepanis. 'True parrots' is redundant. Maias 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Other suggestion maybe renaming True parrots to reduce awkwardness, and also some cleanup and expansion of the contents to be something like Cockatoo. Otherwise, if you really are going to merge true parrots (Psittacidae) into parrot (Psittaciformes), you should also merge cockatoo (Cacatuidae) too, for the sake of consistency. --Melanochromis 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you outline the differences between "parrot", "true parrot" and "cockatoo", so that the appropriateness of the proposed merge can be assessed? Snowman 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • true parrots (family Psittacidae) and cockatoo (family Cacatuidae) both belong to parrot (order Psittaciformes).

Oppose The title is clumsy and needs changing, and the article needs a lot more content (like most family pages), but a huge family like the Psittacidae needs its own page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I think that the problem is that the "parrot" and "true parrot" pages both need improving. Surely, a merged page would be too long. Snowman 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reorganize - Parrot as a disambig page as the word used by laypeople can mean anything from:

Psittaciformes - the order to

Psittacidae - the family to

genus Amazona - even though I'd call them Amazons.

True parrots as such I'd ditch as it is not a term really used by anyone. Also with the de Kloet study all the families are up the spout anyway, so may as well all be Psittacidae for the time being...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Casliber. Are caiques really more closely related to the kakapo than to a cockatoo? I'd do the merge not only because the the "true parrot" is seldom used, but also because there isn't anything on the other page except a few pictures.

No, the Kakapo is pretty ancestral. Also if de Kloet is right then Cacatuidae isn't valid either.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reorganize (part II): OK if the page is too long how about:

Psittaciformes ("Parrot" redirects here)- overview, early fossil history and other info (say on claw arrangement, which pertains to all psittaciformes.

Psittacidae ("True parrot" redirects here) - the family with more on intrafamilial arrangement etc.

Cacatuidae (this should redirect to "Cockatoo" as the taxonomy varies between family & subfamily)

NB: I borrowed Forshaw's 2002 Parrots of Australia and it has Cacatuidae with Nestorinae and Loriinae. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: After looking at this page closely, most of it should remain here as it pertains to Psittaciformes. Actually, I don't think there is much more to add really for psittacidae but keeping it short...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] only those who know and kept parrots should remove links

Only those who know and kept parrots should remove links. Will Acalamari tell us what he know about parrots to remove what he does not know?

Shanlung 04:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. People don't get to claim a article, especially one like parrot. Moreover may I direct you towards Advertising and conflicts of interest? Cheers! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is claiming article? Who are deciding the version of the 'truth' , if there is any such absolute truth? So you claiming that right for yourself? Do tell me who gave you that right? You kept a parrot before? and if so, only your version as edited by you is what you allowed here? Wikipedia is to be a collaborative effort that bring together information on a subject. For that to be meaningful, people involved must know not just at a deep level the subject matter, they must be involved directly in the subject itself. I shared years of my life with a Congo African Grey. I am also into many major parrot forums and well known as Shanlung for years. I have yet to come across you in those parrot forums. It is a very valid question that I ask if you have kept African Grey or even other types of parrot. If you have not, how are you going to understand what is to go into that subject.

It is almost like reading all books on how to swim and decide you know all about swimming without even getting into the water. Then on that basis, you will decide the appropriate reading material for swimmers and people who want to know about swimming.

Telling me " link is inappropriate or spam per WP:EL and WP:RS" is not reason enough. I read through WP:EL and WP:RS long ago. How much do you know of keeping a Grey/parrot that you can interprete WP:EL and WP:RS to be the judge, jury and executioner? Can I knowing only a little on flower and gardening decide to go into flower and gardening section and decide on what people are to read?

If this is just a section on taxonomy I will not even be here. You talk about 'parrot as pet'. Am I who do that disallowed to talk on that aspect?

Shanlung 09:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether I have kept a parrot before or not is completely irrelevant (though, if you must know I have, and my PhD involves them as well to a small degree). What matters is that this article is about a biological order of birds ranging from Macaws to lories, not a linkfarm to every and any website about parrots.

How much do you know of keeping a Grey/parrot that you can interprete WP:EL and WP:RS to be the judge, jury and executioner? I know enough that one with info species is far to specialised for this page, which as I have pointed out is for several hundred species.

For that to be meaningful, people involved must know not just at a deep level the subject matter, they must be involved directly in the subject itself. Rubbish. The principal of Wikipedia is that it is what you write that matters, not what you know.

Anyway, please desist from repeatedly trying to insert personal websites into this page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is your PhD relevant to everything else to other knowledge of parrot such as keeping them as pets? The understanding of their psychology and the formation of relationships with them? So what links are allowed into here? Corporate links or foundation that people just formed up? Is Tinkerbell website not relevant whether or not website is personal?

The Tinkerbell site was deleted by a 20 year old who knew nothing about parrots but has more right that you decide to champion as against me?

Shanlung 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Shanlung 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I already said my phd was irrelevant, as is your experience with parrots. What matters is that the link is unencyclopaedic and inappropriate on the page for the bird order. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The most fundamental and entire spirit of Wikipedia rest on that 5 Pillars. Is that not supposed to be the guiding principle? If this entry is purely on bird order, what is the section 'Parrot and Humans' 'Parrot as pets' all about? You tell me why is Tinkerbell webpage inappropriate? You know every aspects and facets of parrot and humans to be the authority on what is appropriate?

Shanlung 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

to 89.242.116.235

Deleting Tinkerbell link because it was deleted many times before by people with little knowledge cannot be a reason. We might as well defend painting graffitti is valid because that wall was similarly vandalised many times in the past.

What matters if the content is appropriate and not commercial.

This site has link to 'parrot rescue'. Tinkerbell site is to try to educate people so that their parrots need not have to go into rescue.

Why not stand up and debate this issue in public in parrot talk? Just what is your background in parrots that you know what is appropriate? Have the courage of your conviction to show your identity the way I showed my so checks and references can be made on you and your knowledge that you can indeed judge what is appropriate or not.

Shanlung 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is becoming tedious. Once again, it doesn't matter what the anonymous IP knows about parrots. Users don't have to log in to edit. It also doesn't matter that the site is non commerical. To quote Wikiproject:Spam It doesn't matter--being noncommercial (etc.) doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true.Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Extremely tedious it is. I am judged guily by you who said 'Rubbish. The principal of Wikipedia is that it is what you write that matters, not what you know. ' and all kinds of anonymous entities. Is that your guiding criteria too? that 'Once again, it doesn't matter what the anonymous IP knows about parrots.'? That is your view of 'encyclopedic entries'? That I am wrong as I cannot grasp those kind of concepts that you are championing?

Shanlung 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The guiding principal is Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It says so on the first page. The concept is examined here. There are lots of other guidelines, rules, concepts and the like, but that is the most important one (in my humble opinion). In this case I, and an anonymous editor, are editing bearing in mind the guidelines set out in Advertising and conflicts of interest.

Moreover your attempts to push myself andf this anonymous user off in this case violate Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (an official Wikipedia policy). Instead of using your of knowledge the subject to convince us of the merits of the inclusion of the link you instead use your self proclaimed authority in the subject to claim that only you have the right to decide what goes here and what does not. I suggest strongly that you examine the above policy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, finally, three different editors have removed this link over the last 24 hours and you have reverted them every time. Please consult Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and desist from reverting as laid out in that policy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting out feral parrots

I'm in the process of collecting info to begin expanding this article. One thing I think that needs to be done to this article is to split out the section on feral parrots into its own article (with obvioulsy a summary left behind in this article). The section is quite long and could be expanded more. Any objections? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. There is certainly a lot more that could be put in; the current section is only the tip of the beak (to coin a phrase). Maias 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm for this too jimfbleak 06:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there's a bunch of them. And there's others that are really taking the ball and running with it in Oz (Galahs, Sulphur Cresteds, Corellas etc.)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

-- I also think feral parrots could use their own article. But I'm confused. How do you distinguish feral Galah populations from wild? 71.208.173.68 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)