Talk:Harris's hawk

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Birds Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images ). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Requesting a photo of a team hunting in the wild or with prey

How many birds? I can certainly provide two, probably three in a photo. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following to the main article:

In the United States desert southwest, Harris's hawks sometimes engage in a behavior called 'stacking'. Two or three birds may perch one atop the other. Researchers note that when this occurs, the more dominant bird is actually the one on the bottom of the stack. The social dynamics are that when a low-status bird is approached by a higher status bird, the low-status bird will abandon a perch. However, a higher status bird will retain its perch, and end up with one or two lower status birds atop it.

I have seen this behavior myself in the area around Hebbronville, TX. The researcher referred to is Dr. Jim Dawson, then of the University of Arizona at Tucson, who reported on this to a meeting of the California Hawking Club around 2002. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been removed? Laurellien (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting information. Can anyone find published references to support its re-inclusion? Pelagic (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be "Harris' Hawk"? Artrush 07:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why aren't we correcting the spelling of Harris's to Harris' Hawk? Obviously the editor that started the article spelled it incorrectly. That I understand. What I don't understand, is why we haven't petitioned to correct it. My two cents: Pocketthis (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the editor that started the article used one of two equally valid spellings. There is no binding rule about whether to use a terminal possessive -s for words ending in -s, and in fact you will find both variants of "Harris' hawk" in the literature (e.g., the IUCN uses the form we have in the article title [1]). I suggest not getting worked up about this.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't confuse getting worked up about this with trying to simply correct grammar. You are not the only professor here with a degree on his wall. I'm fine with this spelling, if that is the accepted way to spell the species. However, 'grammatically correct' it isn't. Whooda thunk it? Pocketthis (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it is even grammatically correct. See any number of sources [2][3]. Certainly not worth a page move, in any case :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is OR, but my HHs have taken rabbits, jackrabbits, ground squirrels, tree squirrels, rats, mice, voles, English sparrow, ducks, a goose, quail, chukar, and pheasant. They tried to take muskrat, unsuccessfully. There are any number of other animals that a HH may try for that aren't going to be on any game list. They are pretty opportunistic. In south Texas, we saw a cast of about eight wild HHs feeding on a road-killed bobcat. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted in my comment with the removal of the photo that the picture is of a falcon, not a Harris' hawk. I would think that erroneously displaying a picture of some other species and calling it a Harris' hawk is a perfectly good reason to remove it. Heck, the picture could be of a daffodil; would it then be obvious that it needed to be removed?

Pictures of actual Harris' hawks --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rudeness. Thank goodness I rarely meet such an unpleasant response. I simply misunderstood the meaning of your Edit Comment which was .....Rm falcon picture labeled as HH, add "juvenile" to picture description. In my ignorance I did not realise what you were telling me in that Edit Comment because to me falcons and hawks were not different birds (so I saw no special meaning in your use of the word "falcon"). Therefore I assumed the picture had to be removed because you thought the article did not need it. It would have been far clearer to say in the Edit Comment This is not a Harris Hawk, this a (whatever) then I would have understood the reason for removal, you would not have needed to write to me in such a nasty way and I could have used the pic on the appropriate article. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out ignorance can never be all that pleasant, I guess. Words do have meanings. Species can generally be differentiated. Experience in the field does make some opinions better than others. "falcon" and "hawk" are differentiated in falconry, even if not in common speech. Since the article should aspire to propagating knowledge and not ignorance, I don't see much point to beating around the bush. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-removed the erroneous photo from the HH article. It would be nice if it didn't crop up again. As to what species it actually represents, it might be of a prairie falcon or some hybrid involving a prairie falcon. You might need a longwinger to comment, or contact the zoological park where the photo was taken and request their assistance. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pointing out ignorance can never be all that pleasant" Wow, you really are laying it on thick!! I am not a bird specialist so I made an error in interpreting your Edit Comment yet your reply, above, remains unpleasant and unfriendly. Having contributed to Wikipedia since January 2003 it is extremely rare to meet with other than courtesy and friendliness from another Wikipedian. There is obviously no possibility of putting it back, now that you have told me of my error. Matter closed - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand Wesley's attitude in his comment. it can be very frustrating to someone who knows alot about a particular subject see something that is total wrong with something someone else has done with that subject. If someone came up to me with the original picture and said "look at this lovely harris hawk picture" I would be pretty mad. however, the way he put his point accross was wrong and inconsiderate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.93.3 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original point was made in the edit summary when I removed the photo in question and one other edit:

# (cur) (last) 11:55, 1 March 2008 Wesley R. Elsberry (Talk | contribs) (11,345 bytes) (Rm falcon picture labeled as HH, add "juvenile" to picture description) (undo)

My commentary here only followed the revert by the photographer, whose edit summary was:

# (cur) (last) 19:07, 1 March 2008 Arpingstone (Talk | contribs) (11,408 bytes) (It's hard to see why the excellent closeup was removed so I've put it back. If you wish, give your reasons on the article Talk Page) (undo)

Which led to my comment here on the talk page. It is quite frustrating to have an edit summary ignored, and the self-serving edit summary of the photographer reverting the edit to compliment and restore his own picture was just the cherry on top. That's what I see as rude. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen vidoe of two hawks in a spiral dive holding each other's talons. Is this the Harris Hawk? If so, some mention of this unique behavior is warranted. Kjaer (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More likely these were falcons or buzzards since harris hawks do not usually go to high enough altitudes in order to spiral down for any distance. were the birds in the video wild or captive bred?

The video was from a nature documentary on predatory birds. I know that the Harris's hawk was mentioned in the video, but am not sure if it was the one that exhibited this behavior. The bird was definitely not a falcon or buzzard.Kjaer 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

although hawks are sometimes used to scare other birds at a worksite, etc. it is more common to use a falcon like a male peregrin (females aren't used so much since they nearly always turn into hunting birds) which are the prime predators of most small to medium sized birds like the seagull. just a small point from a falconer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.93.3 (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that anyone has surveyed falconers who do anti-FOD and anti-depredation work on proportions of raptor species used. It is, however, a fact that HHs are used for such purposes. Another point from a falconer and wildlife biologist. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story - Wimbledon's HH, Rufus, used to keep pigeons off court. Rufus recently kidnapped, but returned unharmed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/01/rufus-wimbledon-hawk-found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.165.64 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this really be a B grade? I've just spent 20 minutes clearing out

I take it you had a reason for reducing the section on falconry down to 3 lines. Could you share that reason with us or does it just come under the title of "formatting"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.93.3 (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present if you type "Harris" into the wikipedia search box you are taken to the Isle of Harrises entry! As there are many uses of the word Harris it has been proposed to change this so that when you type "Harris" you are taken to the Harris (disambiguation) page instead.

If you support/oppose this move or have any comments please add your input to the Harris Talk page.

Thanks --WickerWiki (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harris's hawk. 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/20130305133856/http://users.cybercity.dk/~ccc12787/raptors/parabuteo.html to http://users.cybercity.dk/~ccc12787/raptors/parabuteo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harris's hawk. 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/20050418091236/http://www.peregrinefund.org/Explore_Raptors/hawks/harrishk.html to http://www.peregrinefund.org/Explore_Raptors/hawks/harrishk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In computer science

Should that content be included in the article? There seems to be a difference of opinion. See the latest edits.

Here is another Web site that discusses it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X18313530 In this paper, a novel population-based, nature-inspired optimization paradigm is proposed, which is called Harris Hawks Optimizer (HHO).

Since it appears to be only in the proposed stage, I don't believe it should be in the Wikipedia article. Other views?

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither - just reverted it. I don't think it belongs in here even after publication, unless it makes some waves. And in any case, not in the form of badly-phrased name-dropping. No objection to an "In computer science" section if notable material for that turns up, but this ain't it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the relevant guidelines for including something like this? In the four years since this was last discussed, the paper has been cited over 3,400 times.

As a lay person (no particular expertise in zoology or computer science) this feels notable, but I don't know what the wiki inclusion criteria are 2604:CA00:170:4552:0:0:A69:1104 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Harris hawk can be found over a wide area of southwest US, Mexico, and Central and South America it is only in the Sonoran Desert that their cooperative hunting has been observed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.220.97 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The publication of Parabuteo Ridgway antedates Erythrocnema Sharpe because the latter appeared June 26, 1874, while Ridgway himself attributed in his later work ('Bulletin of the United States,' 1876) that his name was published in Baird, Brewer & Ridgway (volume III) in January, 1874. Thus, all of Ridgway's nomenclatural usage in that volume has priority over Sharpe's Catalogue, (volume I). See p. 161 in Ridgway. [4]https://www.google.com/books/edition/Bulletin_of_the_United_States_Geological/kys4AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=erythrocnema+sharpe+1874&pg=RA2-PA162&printsec=frontcover

This treatment was also followed by other authors, including Bendire (Life-Histories of North American Birds), p. 202 (1892), and in the both Check-list(s) of the American Ornithological Union (1886: 187; 1895: 129). See also the later catalogues of Friedmann (1950) and of Hellmayr & Conover (1949).

mmslouis  db-user  db-user (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, please use ~~~~ to better sign your talk comments, so that you don't have the mess of a signature like you do above. (Or perhaps you do that on purpose, in which case... Meh.) As for your point, Wikipedia does not make determinations as to what is correct; we only report on what is written in

WikiProject Birds has chosen to follow the IOUIOC for bird naming and taxonomy. As such, the discussion as to this priority should be conducted there. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The purpose of my explaining the priority of Parabuteo is to explain the date(s) of publication of the works involved, namely Sharpe (Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum (volume I) and Ridgway in Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, (History of North American Birds (volume III)). All of my sources are readily verifiable, as well as the fact that Ridgway's name has been the prevalent one since the nineteenth century.

mmslouis db-user db-user (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the issue up on the bird project talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]