This is an archive of past discussions about Feral pigeon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Did you consider discussing this change first, or providing reasoning on the page itself at all? This is a fairly big change, and it would seem that information directly pertaining to one particular species should belong on that species' article, whether or not it takes up an extensive amount of space (and in this case, the information on feral pigeons is one of the more relevant sections within the Rock pigeon article.--C.Logan12:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, according to WP:LENGTH#A rule of thumb, the size of the article (20,993 bytes) did not come close to warranting a content fork by size alone. The problem with this article is that you've essentially formed parallel articles concerning the same species, with corresponding sections on feeding, breeding, etc. This kind of forking, as far as I can see, is strongly discouraged.--C.Logan13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather superficial; neutral enough but misses some of the better data
The very brief note about the California use of OvocontrolP needs work. The project has, so far as anyone can tell, failed. Also, OvoControlP itself presents some issues which might eventually mandate reconsidering the California project. This was widely discussed in New York, when a local councilman proposed a similar use; most of that material can be found by searching on "Simcha Felder" and "pigeons".
There is also some real problems with the don't-feed-'em line. See the relevant discussion in Johnston & Janiga, Feral Pigeons--djenner (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Beach pigeons
In Dawlish pigeons are to be found on the beach, and nest under the overhead railway on the sefront. I can't find an online reference for this new habitat, but is well known (in fact very obvious) locally. Can anyone find a reference? Totnesmartin20:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
By the time that they're old enough to leave the nest, young pigeons are the same size and pretty much the same colour as their parents. Pigeon nests are usually either high up or well-hidden under cover, so you don't really notice them unless you live nearby and see the adults coming and going with food. There's some pictures of baby pigeons at Rock_Pigeon#Gallery, if you want to see what they look like... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to see baby pigeons, go to the West Portal Muni Metro station in San Francisco. Go into the station and look up at the blue curved steel beams holding up the roof. Tubes of chicken wire have been place atop the beams to keep pigeons from nesting there. However, in some places the pigeons have found a way in and built nests there. Every day commuters watch the pigeon babies growing up. The other day I saw one take its first flight. You just need to know where to look. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Now that I'm paying closer attention, I'm seeing juvenile pigeons everywhere. While standing, their height is on the low side of normal compared to adult pigeons, but only because the have very long legs. The height of the body is quite small. From front to back, their length is on the low side of normal compared to adults, but only because of the longer tail feathers. From left to right they are quite narrow, and thus have very low body volume, and presumably mass. Their heads are small, but the beaks are the same length as adult beaks, just much narrower at the base. The toes are nearly the same length as in adults, but only half the diameter. Their wings, when folded, do not blend in to the body as with adult pigeons, but stick out all around. Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Pigeons Will Come To You
I fed a bunch of pigeons crackers a few days ago. A couple of pigeons started to eat the crackers out of my hand. It was kind of surprising because they usually run and fly away from humans. But it sure was cool. B-Machine (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen came up with "flying rats." He also coined the words "Beatnik" and "Hippie."Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Removed. There is a difference between a colloquial moniker and a common name in frequent use. "Flying rats" / "rats with wings" is the latter; only the former get mention in the lede. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Fed feral figeons
People from some Indian (Mexican), Chinese and other ethnias feed pigeons on principle as a way to establish control of the presence of people in parks and to control the cleanliness of places and streets where they want to make a silent statement against neighbors. This has to do with the color gray and the way pigeons dirty parks, streets, cars and can keep people away from benches and other rest spaces. This even against non existent regulations. Pigeons would appear to reproduce more often, but it is people under such practice who bring them to place and feed them, even when seemingly nobody is feeding them. It is a reason why they act as vermin or plague and why it is so difficult to exterminate them or drive them away. This practice goes to the extreme of managing flocks by feeding them in different places and corners so they grow steadily and finally invade some spot to make it unusable to people as the people filling the place with pigeon poop want. It is most likely that the presence of pigeons in cities is not due to spontaneous migration but are specially brought into the city by these people to dirty the place and it is them who keep such vermin population stable. Pigeons carry some particularly nasty parasites and can cover acts of Human vandalism after they concentrate and the place is emptied because of the accumulation of pigeon excrement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.246.151 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Pigeons are carnivorous
They not only eat grains and bread, they also eat liver pate and probably other animal innard. This can be tested at home. City pigeon flocks would originate from corpses left to rot, or be used to hide corpses and leave clean bones. This is convenient if the flock can be fed elsewhere away from the corpse to hide the source of the flock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.57 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
'Ancient dovcotes' section
Not exactly the most neutral wording, IMO (and unsourced too)...
e.g.
"...highly negative press that pigeons have received courtesy of propaganda circulated by the pest control industry...""
"Nonetheless pigeons have been given a bad name and that name has stuck, resulting in the public having an unnatural and unfounded fear of contact with pigeons"
"In reality, it is these problems (ie. the soiling of buildings used for perching and roosting) that are the main reason that pigeons are controlled, not the perceived health risks"
To me, this kind of sounds like an opinion piece, contianing propaganda of another type. Any thoughts? I did consider removing the whole section... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I just changed the word excrement to droppings for the following reasons. Besides being biologically incorrect (not in itself a good reason since a huge percentage of words in most languages are on some level "incorrect") style guides deprecate it as sounding too formal, which combined with its biological incorrectness, make it seem ridiculous. Excrement is generally a euphemism for feces. Bird droppings contain semi-liquid feces (clear and brown) and a white semi-solid urine-like substances. I think the combination of the two is properly termed "droppings." If someone can correct me on this, please feel free. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Modern dovecotes
This section is too long, reads like an advertisement, and seems to contain how-to information. The part at the end about how many offspring pigeons can produce also seems a bit much, since the same could be said for nearly all other life forms. Whenever humans have colonized a new continent (back in the upper paleolithic) it only took about 500 years to fill up the entire continent with millions of people, even with an initial popular of 10 or 20 hunter-gatherers. A pair of rabbits could, under ideal conditions, produce enough offspring to fill up the entire universe a trillion times over in practically no time. In the real world, there are always limiting factors. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Breeding: Food
Pigeons mate for life, and are often found in pairs during the breeding season, but usually the pigeons are gregarious preferring to exist in flocks of from 50 to 500 birds (dependent on the food supply).[4]
The flocks I've seen are much smaller. One in my neighborhood has 23. Sometimes they split up into 15 and 8. When foraging they sometimes travel in groups of 8 or 15, then split up into 2s and 3s. It seems to be a question of how much food is available, and how hard they have to hunt for it.
Feral pigeons can be seen eating grass seeds and berries in parks and gardens in the spring, but there are plentiful sources throughout the year from scavenging (e.g., dropped fast-food cartons) and they will also take insects and spiders. Additional food is also usually available from the disposing of stale bread in parks by restaurants and supermarkets, from tourists buying and distributing birdseed, etc.
Is there some documentation on restaurants and supermarkets dumping food in parks? Also, tourists aren't the only ones who buy bird seed. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
NPOV
This article seems too tilted toward the idea that humans should try to "control" pigeon populations...when in fact many humans actually support feeding pigeons. Moreover, pigeon populations adjust naturally to the ecosystem (how much food is available; what are the risks of predators) and in many cases pigeons help clean up messes left behind by humans. With urban feral pigeons not pushing out other, "natural", species, and not harboring major disease, many feel that pigeons are OK and that having some kind of false nest where bird eggs are stolen is unethical. The article should be adjusted to indicate that there are multiple points of view and not all agree on what the best course of action for pigeon policy is.96.25.189.9 (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Killing and injuring pigeons.
The information about killing and injuring pigeons is categorically wrong. Killing pigeons is perfectly legal and widely practised in the UK. Killing of pigeons is permitted under the terms of 'The General Licence' and if conducted with the landowners permission and for the purposes allowed under the general licence, then no offence is committed. The text of the general licence for England can be found at
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-gl04_tcm6-24149.pdf similar provisions in relation to feral pigeons are in operation for, Wales and Northern Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.45.8 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This publication was withdrawn on 26 April 2019
This licence has been revoked..Killing of pigeons is not widely practiced in the UK. All wild birds and their eggs are protected under the animal welfare laws. Otherwise you'd get arrogant selfish morons doing what they like. 88octopus88 (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Columba livia domestica and not a species page
Surely, by definition, Columba livia domestica not Columba livia? Additionally, why does this page have a taxo box, I would have thought the main page on domestic pigeons would have the taxo box, this page is not about a 'species', just about a subset now living wild --Tony Wills (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Corrected species to Columba livia domestica. I have left the page with a species info box, but strictly only the main article on domestic pigeons should have that, this is just a sub article extracted from there. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The article is pretty much on the money so far as Australia is concerned. I wonder which areas it (allegedly) under-represents? Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Feral pigeons (Columba livia domestica) are birds derived from domestic pigeons that have returned to the wild. Originally bred from the wild rock dove, which naturally inhabits sea-cliffs and mountains, these pigeons use the ledges of buildings as a substitute for sea cliffs. They have become adapted to urban life, preying on insects and scavenging. They are abundant in towns and cities throughout much of the world.Photograph: Muhammad Mahdi Karim
I am considering adding a section to this page on the flight of the pigeon and using images from a dissection I will be doing along with other sources to show the muscles used in flight and to discuss how those muscles are used in flight. Thoughts and comments on this are welcome. Theambivert20 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
pigeons
Despite the social perception as dirty and disease-ridden, pigeons are actually very clean animals and there is very little evidence to suggest that they are significant transmitters of disease. Pigeons and humans have lived in close proximity for thousands of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.133.83 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The use of the weasel word "commonly" to describe how pigeons are considered
If you read WP:WEASEL you will see that phrases like "many are of the opinion", "most feel", "it is often reported", "it is widely thought", "it is often said" are considered inappropriate unless a reliable reference supports that these things are the case. The statement that "Feral pigeons are commonly considered pests" begs the question "exactly what do you mean by 'commonly'; who is included in this definition?" and the references provided fail completely to answer it.
I cannot assume that you are already aware of WP:SYNTH, so I shall draw your attention to it now; the policy states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", and the implication that "pigeons are commonly considered pests" drawn from a combination of two references, neither of which supports that claim, is in direct contravention of that policy.
In your edit summary, you ask "[...] do you require one reference for every nationality?" and the answer is "no". If one reference states that pigeons are considered pests in "the US", and another states that they are considered pests in "Europe and North America" (I freely admit to not having read the entire WHO reference), we can state (citing those references) that "pigeons are considered by the WHO and Robbins to be pests in the US and Europe"; we cannot state that they are "commonly" considered pests without redefining the meaning of "commonly".
I hope we can find an agreeable and encyclopedic statement but, in the end the weasel words and synthesis (original research) must go. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs06:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The term you are looking for here is "appropriate summary". If there is a preponderance of sources that states that feral pigeons frequently act as vertebrate pests, then that is "commonly" stated. References are trivially easy to find, and I will happily pile them up until the page buckles (I warn you, there's several shelves full of human-wildlife interaction literature within arm's length). Let's see, start with two older but still widely used textbooks: Handbook of Pest Control (Mallis & Story)[1] and Truman's scientific guide to pest control operations (Bennett et al.).[2] These two are specialist manuals for pest animal control and prominently feature feral rock doves. For something more recent, we have Animals and human society (eds. Scanes and Toukhsati)[3], which in its chapter on "pest animals" discusses feral rock doves. For recent papers available on the net, we have Feral pigeons: problems, dynamics and control methods (Giunchi et al. 2012)[4], High density of bird and pest species in urban habitats and the role of predator abundance (Sorace 2002)[5], and Australian research on bird pests: impact, management and future directions (Bomford & Sinclair 2002) [6] (We've now covered Great Britain, Italy and Australia as well, by the way.)
Another ten minutes' search would yield another half dozen. It is the status quo in urban and agricultural wildlife management to acknowledge that feral rock doves act as vertebrate pests. That is why "commonly regarded" is appropriate. Lining up individual citations for every corner of the globe is of course an option, but frankly a bit silly. If you want one authoritative source with a wide ambit, I'd suggest the WHO publication - it is both encompassing and very well vetted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I have neither requested nor desire a stack of references. Your statement that If there is a preponderance of sources that states that feral pigeons frequently act as vertebrate pests, then that is "commonly" stated is the very definition of original research. The size and proximity of your personal library is irrelevant, it's not the reader's responsibility to search for references, and the time it takes and the ease of which there may be of finding them is also irrelevant.
A single authoritative reference stating, at least something agreeably equivalent to the disputed claim that "Feral pigeons are commonly considered pests" needs to be provided, or the statement needs to be changed to something that is not an editor's (demonstrably (above) in your case) original research. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not how it works. We summarize the source situation, we don't just reprint by-the-letter statements. E.g., if there are a hundred scientific articles on subject X, then it is completely acceptable to state that "the subject has been widely covered" - there is absolutely no need to find a single source that makes this particular statement. As a more specific example, we have tens of thousands of articles on films, books and albums that feature one variation or another of "X was met with generally positive reviews", exemplified by a number of such reviews; but you will find no reference that contains this statement itself - it is a summary by the editor. I invite you to solicit other editor's opinions on this matter, but I think you will find that this accords with standard usage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That approach is covered by the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists; can and will you provide a policy, guideline or even essay link to a statement in support of your argument that this form of original research is accepted?
Without being explicit about the context governing this use of "commonly" it could be misinterpreted as a global consensus amongst all the people of Earth, whereas, from what I see, you are using it only to describe your implied consensus that a very specific set of research documents indicated what you have established is a shared view or understanding.
I have found a couple of reasonable references that discuss the common perception that feral pigeons are a pest which might serve to support the claim that "feral pigeons are commonly considered pests" with still some adjustment.[7][8] Although care should be taken to ensure fair weight is given to the argument against this perception therewithin, these two refs both indicate a general negative perception. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs23:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of breaks down when you try to apply it to overwhelming, project-wide consensus of usage, and you might want to consider that you are merely confusing synthesis (not appropriate) and summary (the cornerstone of every article). However, if you have found some references that fulfill your expectations of a verbatim statement, fine by me; I believe this is it not required here, but there's no reason not to use them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Neither of the refs I most recently suggested would apply verbatim, but I am glad that changing the disputed content is agreeable. Would you agree to an immediate change of the disputed statement to "feral pigeons are widely considered pests" with no need to alter or increase the current refs? I will accept that as a compromise. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs00:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, lost track of the watchlist. Yes, if you are happy with that, that would sound sound like a good compromise wording. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
^Feral pigeon: flying rat or urban hero? BBC Wildlife Magazine - "Are feral pigeons a pest and a nuisance? It is often said that feral pigeons are a real nuisance, but what exactly are the problems? The standard gripe is that there are too many of them and therefore they need to be controlled. It’s a familiar refrain. The accusation is also levelled at rats, magpies, crows, squirrels, foxes, badgers and deer, to name but a few so-called 'pests'."
^Loved or loathed, feral pigeons as subjects in ecological and social research Oxford Academic, Journal of Urban Ecology - "Naturalists and environmentalists alike espouse sentiments for the bird that are unfavorable at best. The pigeon carries with it all that runs counter to ecology and conservation: these birds are feral, exotic and invasive. The birds are associated with habitat loss for native species and social concerns such as disease and filth. Named 'rats of the sky'[...]
Maybe this and other pigeon-related pages (i.e. Domestic Pigeon and Rock Dove) should be given Pending Changes Protection or something to reduce vandalism?
They seem to be more vulnerable to vandalism, especially from young children or people with an immature sense of humour. I guess this would be because they're kind of funny-looking, dirty, and poop a lot, all of which seem to be incredibly entertaining to small kids. These articles are probably viewed quite often as well, since pigeons are a very common, everyday bird. This page in particular has been vandalised quite a few times.
I'm not terribly confident with this area, though; I joined Wikipedia quite recently so I'm not entirely sure what action would be appropriate. Thanks. - Watermelon-lemon (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It is preferable that all articles on Wikipedia are editable by all persons at all times. It's a free-for-all! Page protection is employed generally as a last resort or occasionally because patterns indicate (e.g. a famous person is on trial for something) that an unusual influx of attention from a wider than normal audience is likely and that those new visitors may feel strongly about some aspect of the content without necessarily being very good at articulating it in policy/guideline friendly ways. Other pages like templates are different, as changes to them can affect millions of articles, and "high risk" templates are often preemptively, indefinitely protected. This page has had comparatively minor activity (since I've been watching) and the history doesn't look that bad really (in my humble opinion). If things ever get crazy, someone following will almost certainly ask administrators for temporary protection until things are likely to have calmed down. The best protection any article can have is plenty of conscientious people watching it, willing to fix stuff as needed, while allowing the casual passer-by to make amendments as they see fit. Crowd sourcing the sum of human knowledge requires the sum of human kind to be involved (as much as possible). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs19:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
UK law regarding general licences
Very recently the "general licences" were revoked after an inquiry established that they were legally unsound. I am in the process of collating the details with an aim to improve the content in this regard, but since I am not a one-man article writing machine, I should make the community aware of what I am working with so far, so it may address the issue in a more timely manner if it sees fit. The following: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] are the immediately most relevant sources of info I've found (so far). I also have a bookmark folder stuffed with sources regarding their history, which is relevant, and courtship and general interest, but this is more of a heads up that an account of intention to edit. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs11:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge? and other changes.
I like how a lot of the information here could just be moved to the rock dove page. I propose that that page have basic pigeon info, and that we merge this one with the domestic pigeon page under that title. Feral pigeons are mostly just abandoned racers and performing birds anyways. I also feel like there should be a section talking about the diseases that they can actually spread, since just vaguely stating it is just wrong. Anthropophoca (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Domestic pigeon task force As i have talked about in their respective pages, i feel like feral pigeon has many bits of information that should be in the wild pigeon page (rock dove) as the domesticated birds still share many of their wild behaviors. Furthermore, as feral pigeons are merely escaped/abandoned performers, i suggest splitting the content on the feral page and moving some sections to the rock dove page, and some of it to the domestic pigeon page, and redirecting the feral page to the domestic page. Alternatively, the feral pigeon page should be altered to the street dog or street cat standards. Anthropophoca (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I have shifted my stance since posting this, having posted my new suggestion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Domestic_pigeon_task_force#Merge_Domestic_Pigeon_and_Feral_Pigeon I now think that the feral pigeon page should just talk about how they do in cities, and we should strip some of the information there and move it to the rock dove page, since their behaviors are similar to their wild forebears. Perhaps we can also talk about how pigeon racing produces a majority of these feral populations, since releasing birds en-masse and the practice of "let the race do the culling for you" produces a lot of abandoned birds. And we shouldn't make baseless assumptions about their spread of disease, as pigeons are not "inherently" dirty and sickly. Anthropophoca (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
[W]e shouldn't make baseless assumptions full stop; WP:V.
I'm inclined to agree with Wugapodes, that if this is to be merged anyhow, it should be back to "Domestic pigeon", but I'd be perfectly happy for things to stay as they are. The history of domestication and the eventual creation of a feral population is long and interesting, and literally and figuratively splits from that of the Rock Dove. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs04:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
As an outsider, I was bemused to see the term "feral pigeon" in another article… and after reading the article and talk page, I remain more than a little bemused by why so much effort has gone into preserving distinct articles (at the expense of the readers' quick understanding of the title). Why are the various pertinent articles not condensed to Pigeon (the most common term for birds of this species), with what's probably the most numerous group by far (and the one that first jumps to most people's minds when hearing the word) as the first section? 50.210.38.173 (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
One reason is article size and content balance. If we shoved this entire article into the rock dove article, we'd be increasing that article's size by about 50%, which isn't too big, but with now a third of the article about ferals and not about the species in general, that doesn't seem like a reasonable balance. Having multiple articles, with a small summary of this article in the species article, you get the right amount of information in the general article, and the right amount of information in the specialized article. - UtherSRG(talk)11:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
By this logic, back when Wikipedia was overloaded with lengthy anime trivia subpages the only possible solution was to keep the status quo because they already exist, since collapsing them into the main articles would make the main article too short by comparison. If the most notable subgroup of the species by far (the largest and the one everyone is familiar with) is shorter, that doesn't mean it has to be kept as a de-facto sub-article with confusing terminology because another subgroup has a longer article.
At the very least, the title needs to reflect the way the overwhelming majority of people refer to the ones out in the wild. No one calls them "feral pigeons" except this article -- everyone calls them "pigeons". 50.210.38.173 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
No, those articles were not encyclopedic, so removing them or making them into a single line in the relevent parent articles was appropriate. "Feral pigeon" is a significant topic. Regardless of what you call them, we can't have two articles named "pigeon"; using a natural disambiguator is preferrable than a synthetic one like "pigeon (ferals)". - UtherSRG(talk)19:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Which one do the overwhelming majority of people mean when they use the word "pigeon"? To me that seems like a pretty good guideline, but I do recognize that doesn't mean much since I'm not one of the page's owners (yes yes, I know that concept doesn't exist and never has and never will happen... please don't worry about enlightening me with WP:AGF. 50.210.38.173 (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
75.111.14.192, this concerns you. You have been trying to edit-war a number of statements into the article that are almost entirely unsourced, clearly agenda-driven, and apparently intent on vindicating the poor maligned feral pigeon. Bully for your pro-pigeon sentiments, but Wikipedia wants a well-sourced article that represents the mainstream treatment, rather than one laced with earnest special pleading about pigeons being not invasive, not disease vectors, and unjustly persecuted. Please discuss your intended changes here instead of fighting to edit-war them into mainspace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Elmidae edits were made in an attempt to create a more neutral tone in article and highlight humane (and arguably most effective) options for population control. There is enough exaggerated propaganda about feral pigeon populations that the tone of them being disease carrying vermin needing complete eradication does not belong on Wikipedia. I appreciate your warning earlier and would further appreciate adjustments being made to the article in question that has a less harsh tone while keeping sources and remaining as factual as possible, whether from me, you, or any other editor. Feel free to keep the main meat of the article, while adjusting the verbiage. There was no mention that pigeons were non-invasive in my edits. There is no mention that pigeons are not vectors in any of my edits. You mean unjustly prosecuted as in their numbers shouldn't be controlled? Well, that wasn't in my edits, either. You are purposely misrepresenting me in a public forum for argument's sake. Pigeons in fact are invasive, though have a lower impact due to their habitat being congregated around people. The majority of their resources are from people, structures, trash, ect. There is no mention in current revision on how people can lower the slim chances of disease transfer via hygiene after interacting with the birds. There's also no mention in the current article that they filled the void of the carrier pigeon and have benefitted BOP populations. The article may not be as harsh as pest control advertisements, but still leans with a negative bias that doesn't summarize the whole story. The case being made is not to have a pigeon positive article, but aim for a neutral toned article that readers expect from this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.14.192 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Other than disease transmission to other avian species, which can happen with any bird, native or not. No significant competition for resources in most biomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColumbidaeX (talk • contribs) 21:19, February 5, 2021 (UTC)
Okay; that sourcing looks good (it does need to be referenced in the article though!). However, please be aware that a neutral in an article is not achieved by trying to juxtapose perceived biased statements with bias in the other direction. That is, multiple instances of the type "however, [referring to prior statement] is actually not the case because [counter]" - of which you inserted several - just make for a confusing piece of reading that feels like a dispute in writing. Please insert additional material in a neutral way, and leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. And please don't make these big, sweeping edits in one go that make it hard for others to assess and deal with individual bits. Incremental changes are much easier to work with collaboratively. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Happy to have you double check my sources and I agree that having opposing views in the article is confusing to the reader. I'll start by one bit of the argument here, and gather more sources later on before I make another change. The disease vector perception is probably the most concerning to the everyday reader aside from property damage, so I'll start there. Add the source (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163445303002044) and change the wording to clarify to the reader that the transmission rates pigeon to human are low and to always use hand hygiene after an interaction.
Thank you both.
ColumbidaeX (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
