Talk:Bald eagle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Conflicting account

In the Golden Eagles article, citation 13 references to confirmed instance wherein a Golden Eagle was struck by a Falcon, and killed. However, this same citation and an eerily similar phrasing, is used in the Bald Eagles article, under citation 30. I'm not sure which article is wrong, but one of them is, obviously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telephos (talk • contribs) 04:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I Miss the Memo?

"The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), also known in the United States as the American Eagle"

Pardon me, but, why? PaZuZu 10:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. Gigs 06:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that term before. Except on late night commercials advertising gold coins. Is there a source? --Tbeatty 08:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most people in America associate the Eagle as a national icon. Ive heard it refered to the American Bald Eagle and the American Eagle several times. We need a source to verify, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathward (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bald

Bald is not a zoological term, it is an English word. English is the language spoken in most of the bird's range, so the rm of it sorigins seems pointlessly chauvinistic. jimfbleak 07:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jim - the origins of the name are quite relavant. Raul654 08:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an English zoological term, used of other birds and mammals as well. Perhaps we should have an article on it. But there is absolutely no possibility that the bird is named from the Old English; noone (aside from philologists) has ever spoken Old English in North America.--Pharos 08:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are requesting a reference. Is that the case? Raul654 08:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, surely we all agree the Bald Eagle was not named by Old English speakers? Anyway, my dictionary says "bald" is derived from the Welsh bāl, but that's a different matter. I'm not disputing that "bald" originally meant "white", but simply pointing out that the use here of course doesn't derive directly from Old English or Welsh. The word "bald", like most words, has just evolved several distinct meanings, one of which is an animal with a white top. What if we word it this way: "bald" is here a term for an animal with a white top, sharing an etymology with bald as in baldness in deriving from the Welsh/Old English for "white" Or something like that: at the the momemt I'm waxing a bit tired and verbose ;)--Pharos 08:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, so you think it's misleading to state that bald is derived for baeld when it was probably not named after that? Yes, I suppose that's a valid point - it makes a connection where not is meant to exist. Raul654 08:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I take the point that you make, that it is the derivation of "Bald Eagle", and not the derivation of the word "bald" that is relevant here. jimfbleak 08:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused at this point - I think we need a source on the naming of this bird. Raul654 08:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm no Wikipedian, and this conversation is several Web generations old, so I apologize if this isn't consistent with the local etiquette, but it seems like it's wrong for this article to state that the "bald" in the name of the bird derives from "piebald". The OED has it coming from the common current understanding of "bald", and indeed lists the following as the earliest extant occurrence of "bald eagle", from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1694: "The Second is the Bald Eagle, for the Body and part of the Neck being of a dark brown, the upper part of the Neck and Head is covered with a white sort of Down, whereby it looks very bald, whence it is so named." "Bald" in 1694 is very much the "bald" of 2013, and had been since at least 1386, when Chaucer wrote "His heed was ballid, and schon as eny glas". The only source given for the "piebald" claim is a children's book. The OED vs. Karen Dudley of Raintree Steck-Vaughn Publishing Co. Hmm... 66.215.253.69 (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is "freaking out" OK for an encyclopedia? Mimbster 10:52, 14 February

2006 (UTC)

No,I'm so sorry, it is not the right word and Wikipedian tone, not even in a book of encyclopedia.Trampton 10:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

The term bald is a corruption of the Olde English term 'piebald' meaning 'white-headed' or 'white-crowned', the term was used in the colouring of other species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote

Please give me a Bald Eagle quote for a school speech. Thank you
David

Is anyone there?

How does this sound?

I wish the bald eagle had not been chosen as the representative of our country; he is a bird of bad moral character; like those among men who live by sharking and robbing, he is generally poor, and often very lousy. The turkey is a much more respectable.

- Benjamin Franklin, 1706 - 1790

Source: [1] --Khoikhoi 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Khoikhoi. I will use this quote.

I think that Benjamin Frankln is wrong. Imagine eating the national symbol for Thanksgiving dinner.

I think Ben Franklin was kidding. He did that a lot.

endangered??

Cut from article pending clarification:

They were on the Endangered Species list until their removal on February 13, 2006.

Please note that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has opened a public discussion period on removing the bald eagle from the endangered/threatened species list. The eagle has not yet been removed. the comment period extends until May 17, 2006.

Just so you know Ben wasn't kidding he made a hard push at the founding of our country for the turkey to be the national symbol mostly for the "intelligence" that he thought he saw...but as we know it today the turkey just have really good sense except for smell

Contradiction

This article and the wild turkey one disagree on the truth of Ben Franklin's preference for the national bird. 68.39.174.238 20:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The full text of Franklin's letter is [[2]] - this wikipedia article has heavily trimmed it (and in fact reworded it - Franklin didn't say 'though vain and silly' - he said, parenthetically, "though a little vain and silly, it is true") to make it appear that Franklin did advocate the turkey for the national bird. Carefully reading, first of all, he is clearly being tongue-in-cheek to make fun of the Society of the Cincinnati (which he hated - the first part of the letter makes that plain enough); however, even if we take him at face value, he never says the turkey should be the symbol of the US - he says he's disappointed it was the eagle, and he's glad that *The Society of the Cincinnati's* emblem, which was an eagle, was poorly enough done to look like a turkey. Again, he's talking about what the Cincinnati's symbol looks like - not what the US national bird should be. Further, he notes that turkey was served at the wedding of Charles IX - is that really a selling point of a national symbol? ...And he talks about the turkey's bravery in the farm yard - making it clear he's talking about a tame turkey not a wild one. Again, would one choose a domesticated farm animal as a national symbol? The most comprehensive biography of Franklin ("The First American") falls on the side of this being just humor to tweak the Cincinnati.

Finally, this letter to his daughter in 1784 *is the only record* of Franklin mentioning, in seriousness or jest, that the turkey is a worthy symbol of anything. If he really advocated the turkey as the US national symbol, then in 1782 (when the eagle was chosen), he would have written a letter to the congress (because he was in Europe from 1776-1785), and no such letter exists.

Apologies if this is not the place to make the argument. I hope whoever resolves the dispute finds this verifiable information useful.

I agree 100%. Franklin was clearly joking. Unfortunately, you'll find that most Wikipedians do not respond well to substantive comments such as yours. They prefer highly-biased, often-overblown interpretations and descriptions. Anyway, nice to see someone else on here isn't a complete idiot. 65.247.226.99 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 02:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a true eagle?

The French version of this page claims the bird is not a true eagle. Is that correct? I've never heard that before, and I don't see that in this article. Funnyhat 07:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It actually depends on what one terms as a true eagle. By the sounds of it the French article is a little biased towards the fact that the bird is not a member of the Aquila genus. (Aquila is the latin term for "eagle." ) However, the habits and physical appearance of the bald eagle indeed mark it as an eagle: it has the hook shaped beak, the large grasping feet, and wingspan of an eagle Futhermore, its closest relative in Europe is the white tailed eagle (you can tell the difference between the two by looking at the feet: bald eagles have yellow feet, but the European one has orange feet.)

A similar situation occurs with the thrushes and some other groups. Genus Turdus is often described as the "true" thrushes, to differentiate it from the American Catharus and Asian Zoothera. jimfbleak 12:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article from American Scientist about that very topic --- http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53060?&print=yes Should the article be changed? Rumpelstiltzkin 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why - there is no doubt that the baldie is an eagle, it's just not in the genus Aquila. The use of phrases like true eagle or true thrush is probably best avoided, at least at genus level - true usually translates as the ones that occur in western Europe. jimfbleak 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Genus aside, the baldie is a known scanvenger. I don't know if other eagles are partial scavengers. But it's (the baldie) is the only one, then does in belong in the eagle family?Rumpelstiltzkin 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Diet is of little significance - a very quick check in my European field guide showed that Golden and Spotted Eagles (both Aquila) as well as White-tailed (Haliaeetus) will also take carrion - large birds of prey in northern latitudes can't afford to let a good corpse go to waste. Eagle is a poorly defined term, and refers more to size and appearance than anything else - the eagles are not necessarily closely related to each other. jimfbleak 05:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You've been very helpful. Much appreciated. Rumpelstiltzkin 19:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Images?

Why are the images on the gallery no appearing?

Problem with main image for article

The main image for this article (Adler_jagt.jpg) is an altered image. The original can be found here:

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en-CA&q=eagle+hd&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSlQEJlyjY4wC3CR0aiQELEKjU2AQaBAgBCAkMCxCwjKcIGmAKXggDEibrFRvuFYgWkxbLAUiSFqoDgReuItEosjf0KfUprSKJJNAo3SGxNxowrYWY_1eHrp15tOpq2QCXerQQP226uORk0VS4r-y8zaUr7L8Sy3dZ01W6-kEj6ImaoIAQMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgR5sFKyDA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjezrj0p9jOAhWIQyYKHePvCfcQwg4IGigA&biw=1920&bih=939

Someone's hard work has been stolen, and the image is also misrepresenting reality; that is not what an eagle looks like when it is fishing. That is what an eagle looks like when it is landing.

Note to recent editors

1. The religious symbol section is wikified. Words such as "eagle" only need to be linked the first time they appear in an article, not every time.
2. The agreed convention is that the names of bird species are capitalised, so Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle
3. The section stating frequent comparison with the bible and crucifix is improbable and unsourced, so I've removed it pending a verifiable source.
4. "Certifiable" tribe - sounds improbable, since it suggests legal ethnic separation still exists in the US, but I don't know if it's true or not, so I left it in. Shouldn't it be certified anyway?
5. External links should be to sites giving more information on the bird, not linkspam to campaigning groups like "Religious Freedom with Raptors".

Thanks, jimfbleak 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: CRUCIFIX/BIBLE COMPARISON: comparison between eagle feather and the bible and cruifix are common in native american community, i've used it myself and so have many others i've known. am including a couple references in this regard, although will try to locate more.

RE: LEGAL/ETHNIC SEPARATION: legal ethnic separation still exists in the united states, which is what the link to that website showed. i saw the site, it links to lots of articles that verify this and have therefore put it back. i believe that articles that directly relate to the bird and its status as a religious object in this country does provide additional information about the bird itself. read the articles i'm including in the references and you'll have a better idea.

RE: CERTIFIABLE TRIBE: i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at by asking "shouldn't it be certified anyway?", although I will say that one's race or skin color should not determine one's religious freedom. similarly, i find it detestable to require someone to prove their ethnicity in order to be treated with compassion and respect.

Link to group Religious Freedom with Raptors (www.geocities.com/eaglefeatherlaw) provided as additional information resource to readers regarding current status (legal, religious, and cultural) of the bald eagle as a religious object. Link was neither positive or negative, simply provided, in Wikipedia standards, for reader to have additional information and to make up their own minds.

eagles in nest

I found a wonderful picture of two eagles in their nest, it was taken by NASA so it public domain. HighInBC 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hunting

Removed part of the "Range, habitat, and restoration" section. It says that there are no hunting restrictions (and that there is somehow an overpopulation in the US), yet the species has yet to be taken off the endangered species list and it remains illegal to own any portion of the bird (except under the special circumstances mentioned later in the article). Furthermore, if "State Park officials" really wanted eagle hunters to "trim the population," one would think specific states would be mentioned. The section smells fishy (heh, puns...) to me, I'm removing it until someone can cite a source. --65.24.137.39 06:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Dan.

I'm gonna remove that section, as it is obviously false. It doesnt even fit with the rest of the paragraph. It gave me a good laugh though. Acbrog 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Brink of Extinction

I fixed the wording in the first paragraph to change it from "is on the brink of extinction" to "was", and fixed some of the wording. If how it stands now is not correct as regards relative danger of extinction, someone please fix further. Thanks. Jimaginator 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And why was the image removed and marked as a minor edit? I replaced it and removed the nonsense about Bison.

Bald eagles are, and have been, a dime a dozen in Canada for some time and NO WHERE near extinction

The statement regarding near extinction was regarding Bald Eagles in the Continental Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.137.47 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following information is, I can only assume, vandalism. It's located on the right info bar. I don't know what the correct classifications are, but I doubt it has anything to do with the diets of sharks. If someone could please edit the following, I'm sure it would be appreciasted all around.

Kingdom: Shark Bait

Phylum: Shark Meat

Class: Shark Food

Order: Shark Chum

Family: Shark Meat

Species: H. leucocephalus

I'd do it myself, but am such a noob, I don't know how. Nuts.

--Joe In Seattle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.219.0 (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

More Vandalism "The species was on the brink of extinction in the US late in the 20th century, but the species population has increased by 10,000 in the last year thanks to the works of Stephen Colbert, and has been finally removed from the U.S. federal government's list of endangered species. This is the second instance of Stephen Colbert saving a species from the brink of extension.[1]"

What did this sentence originally state?

I nominated this page twice for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and it was denied, because the level of vandalism was not high enough. I think the admins have set too high of a standard for this, because obviously it is now difficult to separate fact from fiction after all the nonsense. Dhaluza 10:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's always easy to revert vandalism back exactly to the previous edit using rollback (or page history). I would be inclined to agree that this page isn't vandalised quite enough for protection (and it's on my watchlist). I've been through and the content appears OK, with one probably true but unreferenced fact being tagged as such. jimfbleak 11:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

^{{| class="wikitable" |- Superscript text |}{| class="wikitable" |-}

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

hgghghhhfdhfjh

yhfsd uxufusayfcftggtfyd'fu8yf\chase chaechasechasechaes |}==National Animal== The problem with national animals is that they are hardly recognized nor they have any relevance at all, if so they range at the level with national trees, landscapes and national weed breedings. Nuff for the subtext, I just want to mention that the Bald Eagle is not the "national animal" for the USA only, Germany has it as its national animal too, so my doubts refer to the special paragraph about the Bald Eagle as the national animal from USA. 62.226.47.119 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The national bird for Germany is actually the white stork. I'm assuming that you're speaking about the black eagle that is found on Germany's coat of arms. Although that's an eagle, not a Bald Eagle specifically. (that would be odd, since it's a New World bird.)--Jude. 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally think this animal is the PERFECT emblem of the USA & it's government in particular, for all the reasons Franklin mentioned. 70.61.22.110 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Newt

This page in other languages

Please add reference to ru:Белоголовый_орлан

Captivity photos

Now that we have lots of new images added to the pool, can we agree to drop all the photos of the birds in captivity? There are still two that have barn-board siding in the backgrounds. We should try to show only wild birds in their natural habitat now. Dhaluza 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides the two you mentioned from the National Aviary, there are a number of images that are also from captivity currently in use. Plus many of them do not say whether they are from the wild or not. Is the standard whether or not they look like they are in captivity or not? this image is from captivity, but it's also a featured picture. I counted 5 images from captivity being used (at least). All of them are of high quality and I think we should keep all of them, unless of course there is an otherwise exactly equivalent picture from the wild. -- RM 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos with obvious evidence of captivity are less valuable. In many of the photos dropped from the gallery, the birds appeared to be in poor condition. On one of the new gallery images, the perched bird is on a man-made perch, and is wearing bewits, so it's more appropriate for an article on falconry. We should drop these in favor of images that at least appear to show the birds in their natural setting. I don't think they need to be equivalent, since the image choice is arbitrary. One head-shot is enough, so let's keep one with blue sky, rather than a man-made background, for example. Dhaluza 01:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you for most part, except that I think that images should only be replaced with wild ones if the only major difference is the background. And since the head-shot with a blurred man made background is a featured picture and the one with the blue background is not, i'm going to disagree with you again. The better picture here should prevail. I have no problem keeping both, however. Image choice is not exactly arbitrary, because the goal should be educational value. Most or all of the quality images are already in the article. Are there any others that you've found that would be better? -- RM 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

DDT

The pro-DDT stuff in here seems biased an unnecessary.

I agree. Not only is it completely out of place in the article, it is an awful lot of material which is not balanced at all by anything. It's not just that it's unbalanced, it just sort of jumps at you and screams "why is this here?" Additionally, I'm not sure it agrees very well with scientific consensus. It seems like an malicious insertion by an anti-environmental lobby and begs the question as to why we're talking about what didn't hurt eagles instead of what did. 66.57.99.110 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the most important question to ask about the DDT comments is - are they accurate? They appear to be more accurate than generic statements like "DDT didn't contribute to declining Eagle populations."

I removed all of this kind information, and many more simply incorrect statements. 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. For much of the 20th century the eagle was endangered/protected, and of course the next question is "why". Most people think it is because of DDT, and this is simply wrong. The high value of eagle feathers to Native Americans for use in tribal dances drove widespread hunting of the eagle. To obscure this fact because of its political incorrectness would be a shame.

What do you find "wrong" about the statement that the Bald Eagle DDT harmed the Bald Eagle? I can't tell from your message. Are you saying that DDT did not contribuute at all to their endangerment? DDT causes infertility in adult Bald Eagles, and thinning or thickening of egg shells, resulting in extremely reduced chances of successful hatching. This has had a definite impact on the well-being of this species, and has affected many other birds of prey. Or are you saying that DDT is not the main reason that eagles were endangered? In this case, it's true that Bald Eagle populations were already declining in the late 1800s. This was due to habitat loss, and also to hunting. The article doesn't discuss any factors that were pre-1940. Obviously, decline in eagle populations was an issue then, because that was when the "Feather Law" was first enacted. Some native American tribes use eagle feathers in ceremonies, but this hardly "drove widespread hunting". Hunting of Bald Eagles was driven by people who wanted to kill for sport, or for trophies, or out of ignorance. It isn't a matter of political correctness. --Jude. 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede that in some studies DDT has been shown to weaken raptor egg shells (though these studies are limited by the difficulty of studying raptor behavior in captivity). However, as you note, the decline in eagle populations does not track the use of DDT, and in fact the decline substantially precedes DDT's introduction in 1940. The shrinking of habitat and hunting are much more likely contributors to the decline. This does not detract from the importance of the DDT question. The eagle's threatened status was a key contributor to the banning in the US, and later by others, of DDT in the early 70s, and this decision was based more on politics than science. As a direct result, millions in poor countries have died of malaria. By repeatedly deleting any reference to this story, some editors of this article contribute to this tragedy. At a minimum, these individuals should footnote sources and allow others to footnote alternatives, rather than simply deleting them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.198.85.2 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 2007 July 2.

The issue could be better discussed in the DDT article, specifically the DDT use against malaria subsection.--Jude. 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GA

This is a very good article and I would like to thank all who have contributed. The part about Benjamin Franklin is very intresting as well as the coin. Penubag 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)penubag

Improving the article

Anyone who wishes to improve the article on this amazing bird can talk with me. I wrote the article in the Hebrew Wiki (which is going to be featured I believe), and I did a lot of research. Anyone who wants - it is recommended to turn to me in my Hebrew talk page. Yours, Ybk33 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Stephen Colbert's Steagle? That eagle is a celebrity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.250.202 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfect addition for the Stephen Colbert article! It's not mentioned there. It would not be appropriate in this article to mention the minor fixation of a minor celebrity as it has nothing to do with the topic.Bob98133 (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

COnservation status

Delisted is the latest status from EPA. This isn't international but the chart mirrors the international standard.

Current (look to the right):

{ {Taxobox | color = pink | name = Bald Eagle | status = LC }}

Proposed (look to the right):

{ {Taxobox | color = pink | name = Bald Eagle | status = DL }}

Comments? --Tbeatty 07:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. As I've just learned, Birdlife International is the keeper of the IUCN Red List which is preferred. The default conservation status for "DL" is the Autralian system. My disagreement with the IUCN LC designation is semantical/usage in terms of Least Concern. As a lay person, "Least Concern" still seems to imply "concern". That doesn't appear to be the case. As far as I can tell, House sparrow and Pigeon should have the same classification of LC yet they are absent from their pages. It gives the appearance that Bald eagles have a different status. Is that the case? --Tbeatty 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered my own question. --Tbeatty 08:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

and here Jimfbleak 09:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the logic is that Birdlife International is the world umbrella organisation for conservation, and its listings have great importance for that reason. For widespread species, having a different status grading for every country would be impractical, and even a limited range species like the Bald Eagle has never been as at risk in Canada as the US. Jimfbleak 09:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, I've been to a closed cannery in northern British Columbia 10 years ago. "infested" is probably the appropriate word. combine the number of bald eagles with the smell of the cannery and a nearby paper plant and they lose some of their majesty. It was then that I realized that they probably weren't as endagnered as I was lead to believe. I was familiaer with the IUCN Red List. I jsut didn't know it was maintained by a separate organization. --Tbeatty 09:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article about whether or not it is legal to hunt bald eagles in the United States. I think I learned in school that it is illegal to hunt the national bird. However, now that it is no longer vulnerable or endangered I don't know if that changed or whether it was illegal in the first place. Regardless of what the status is, it is something that should definitely be in the article. Valley2city 03:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bald (and golden) eagles are still protected under their own law, despite the change in conservation status. Added info in the US section. [3] Hope this helps. AUTiger » talk 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

I have passed this article's GA because I believe it meets the GA criteria. I was especially impressed by the broad coverage of this article, mostly by the well-written and informative "Relationship with Humans" section. It's a great article, and I think it's pretty close to FA and I'd love to see it at FAC. The only additional things I would recommend would be fleshing out the Native American Culture section and fixing the odd text wrapping with the Franklin quote under National Bird of the United States. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the wrapping issue. The lead needs to be expanded before it goes to FAC. Also, some of the sections need more references (the Diet subsection has none, for instance). Cheers, Jude. 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ps: do you mean that you just changed the rating, or did you put it through a GA review?--Jude. 17:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean that someone (I think 'twas User:SP-KP) nominated and I did the review. I enjoy reviewing the bio articles that I haven't been a major contributer to. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was confused. Anyway, I agree that it's close to FA. --Jude. 19:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandwiched text

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, text should not be sandwiched between two images facing each other. There are a couple of instances of sandwiched text in this article, could someone remove it? I'll do it myself but it seems to me some pics will need to be removed to achieve this and it'll be better for someone with more knowledge of the article to choose which. --Victor12 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Units

How about we replace centimeter with cm and meter with m, linked as here? It can help prevent edit wars between British and American English. 86.31.144.104 20:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I personally don't oppose this idea nor do I support it, I'm neutral on this. Anyone else?UserDoe 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds fine to me—though in reality there shouldn't be any "edit wars" since the WP:MOS suggests that any new additions follow the spelling format (e.g. American English) already in use throughout the article. MeegsC | Talk 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK with me Jimfbleak 05:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes, including, for consistency, abbreviating kilogram, with a link to the first instance of the term. 86.31.101.59 13:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style states that main units should be spelled out and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses, e.g. "4 meters (13 ft)". The edit wars between American and British English should not take place, as, like MeegsC said, unit spelling should follow that format already in use, which is American English.--Jude. 13:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case why don't we spell out the first instance of each unit in AmE, then abbreviate the rest? I think that will comply with the MOS. 86.31.101.59 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But Is It Delicious?

Now that it's in the free and clear, any links to places to buy some? 68.63.170.169 (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Linnaeus

The Linnaeus ref seems suspect to me - the URL doesn't work, and the cited editio decima is the 1758 edition, not the required 1766. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, 1766 is editio duodecima, url deleted (points to wrong ed anyway) , page number deleted, Jimfbleak (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Sorry, but this article in no way good enough for that. The article contains no information about all the basics of ecology of a bird species. There is no behavior, no reproduction, no diet, no migrations, and that for one of the most extensively studied birds of the world. Why has it become a Featured Article? --Accipiter2 (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, good point. Where are these reproduction and behavior sections? Corvus coronoides _talk 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(mouth drops open in shock) It was in the initial FA and I just reinserted the sections, but how on earth did that manage to get deleted without someone catching it? Thanks, Accipiter2! Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I knew there had to be some explanation. Corvus coronoides _talk 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The bald is very powerful! it bit my finger one day in the detroit zoo. i thought that bill (my bald eagle) liked me but he bit my finger and made me go to the hospital! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.150.166 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

that is bad when a bald eagle dose the but it is not unusual because i see a lot of them up here.Nancy6564 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

bald eagle

last year i observed a pair of eagles raise a pair of chicks. after several months when the chicks got larger, they flew off. this year (march 6) i observed an adult and three large immatures sitting on the nest. i don't think these are new chicks since they would have had to have hatched in november or december which isn't the right time of year (central florida). my question is "do young eagles continue to use the nest after once leaving it and if so, for how long? if they don't continue to use it, where do they sleep? i understand they are not sexually mature for three or more years so do they live with mom and dad. sleep wherever, or build a new home for themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdlady1 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

size

Introduction: It is the second largest raptor in North America, after the Golden Eagle. Is this correct? can this not get larger than Golden Eagle. --L I C 13:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

presumably refers to average size, but wrong anyway since Californian Condor is larger

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Dimorphism

Shouldn't the latter half of this sentence, "Males and females are identical in plumage coloration, however females display sexual dimorphism in that they are 25 percent larger than males," read something more like "...but sexual dimorphism is evident in the species in that females are 25 percent larger than males"? The previous construction sounds awkward. How could the females show sexual dimorphism when the description cannot exist but for both sexes? It is a relative concept, and if it wasn't, how would you know it is the females who are displaying it and not the males? AGirlLikeI (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the average female is 12 lbs. and the average male is 9 lbs. then females are 33% larger than males (not 25% larger, as stated multiple times...males are, however 25% smaller than females). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.97.19 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request from Dalepa, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I would like to add a Mating photograph

Bald Eagles Fall Mating 2010-1

Dan Pancamo 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done with delight. What a magnificent picture! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with humans - pets and domestic animals

Should the article include info on the possibility of bald eagles attacking pets and domestic animals? Articles about other American wildlife such as alligators mention of their tendency (or lack thereof) to view smaller pets as prey. Rodents are natural prey of course, but when it comes to smaller house cats and miniature dog breeds I was unable to find definite citation either for or against. Weird question I know, but I just witnessed one circling a small Papillon at the dog park and wound up here researching it. Personal anecdotes don't belong in Wikipedia obviously but I'm wondering if anyone will have better luck finding an acceptable source on it.96.228.129.69 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Most large birds of prey are cautious about tackling prey like cats, dogs and stoats that are well-equipped to fight back (a notable exception being the Eagle Owl, that happily takes pets). I suspect that it's actually quite rare, hence the problem with sourcing — and "loitering with intent" isn't the same as an actual attack Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with your opinion, the purpose in my post was article improvement and sourcing. Let's say, for instance, that little old lady who owned the Papillon in question was concerned about the possibility, even remote, that her dog might become a meal (a reality with many of our native species here in Florida). If she came here to learn about bald eagles and their relationship with humans, it wouldn't do much good to know that some editor on Wikipedia thinks it's "quite rare" - no matter how right you might be. Hearing that from a lot of different random people might be reassuring, but she - or anyone who comes to this encyclopedia - wants to see a synthesis of information from reliable sources.

You're right, though, in that the rarity makes citation difficult, and brings notability into question. Rarity does not imply implausibility though, and in a rural area where one does not find small dog breeds often, and the density of bald eagles is high, it could be much more of a concern than normal circumstances for someone that does own a small dog. (Not me, I own a 110 lb German shepherd and I just have to worry about him attacking gators). I have heard, but am unable to find citation, that certain birds of prey are a realistic concern for attacking wildlife such as free-range chickens. Pages like this are great for general knowledge but come nowhere near acceptability. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything verifiable; they will take chickens, but that's no great surprise, and I found a RS that Golden Eagle has been known to kill a coyote. That doesn't really help, since the goldie has a quite different lifestyle to the baldie.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do cats hunt eagles or just ignore them? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Video links

I think a recent episode of Nature should be added to the Video Links section. The following link leads to the entire page for this episode:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/wnet/nature/episodes/american-eagle/introduction/4201 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.26.40 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, here is a link to the Live Bald Eagle Cam in Codorus State Park, PA

http://hdontap.com/index.php/video/stream/bald-eagle-live-cam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.128 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to the Norfolk Botanical Garden's Eagle Cam

Link to the Norfolk Botanical Garden's Eagle Cam. It is an up-close, rare view of the eagles. http://www.wvec.com/marketplace/microsite-content/eagle-cam.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkrace (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to Eagle cam of Decorah, IA Eagles run by the Raptor Resource Project http://www.ustream.tv/decoraheagles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majnutl (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bobo1921, 5 July 2011

SPELLING ERROR FOUND in the BEHAVIOR - DIET section of the article.

Please change the word "spiricules" to spicules because "spiricule(s)" is not a word.

Here is a link to the definition of what I believe is the correct word:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spicule?show=0&t=1309877433

This is how the wiki article section appears now (with the error):

To hunt fish, easily their most important live prey, the eagle swoops down over the water and snatches the fish out of the water with its talons. They eat by holding the fish in one claw and tearing the flesh with the other. Eagles have structures on their toes called spiricules that allow them to grasp fish. Osprey also have this adaptation.[24]

Bobo1921 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, based on your explanation + Osprey. Well spotted. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.214.251.41, 8 July 2011

Could a link be created to "Ern" or "Erne", a cousin of the bald eagle? [[4]] There is link in the article on bald eagles to their cousins, it seems illogical that it's not both ways...

2.2.234.44 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done. Thanks for the suggestion, but White-tailed Eagle, a synonym for the Ern, is already linked twice – once in the lead and once in the taxonomy section. Per WP:OVERLINK it shouldn't be linked any more times in the same article. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

largest gathering of bald eagles

I wonder why the gathering of 3000-4000 eagles in Haines, Alaska every year in not included in the article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haines,_Alaska — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmitz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested replacement for head shot.

Bald Eagle Portrait

Hi res, good detail, composition and lighting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Urban Eagles

The article makes mention that some eagles are now entering urban areas (Harlem given as an example). Of potential additional interest, there have been Bald Eagle nests found in urban areas of the Twin Cities, MN as well: http://www.saintpaulaudubon.org/education/bird-spotlight/urban-eagles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.100.164 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Latin name of bald eagle

The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus Greek hal = sea OR fishing, aeetus = eagle, leuco = white, cephalis = head)

Αλς = Hals = is the sea in Greek, not salt. Also Αλιεια = Ηalieia is 'fishing' in Greek, 

therefore Hali-aeetus is better translated as "fishing eagle".

Salt is "Halas"! please do correct! thank you

Edit request on 31 October 2012

75.109.146.32 (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC) It's a bird

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Águia Vitória

I think the information about Águia Vitória is a curiosity but can be relevant to the article. I am not sure. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant to the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured in hungarian wikipedia

Hi! Hi! Please somebody insert a {{Link FA|hu}} template! Thanks, --46.35.206.137 (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 20, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a bird of prey found in North America. As visible here, adults are not bald, but have a head of white feathers. Its name comes from an older meaning of the word, meaning "white headed".Photograph: W. Lloyd MacKenzie

Bald eagle vision, hearing, and smell

Does the bald eagle have binocular vision? Can the bald eagle see color? Why should it see color as it is mostly a grayscale bird itself? How good is bald eagle vision compared to human vision? Where are the bald eagle's ears? Are they hidden under the feathers on the head? How good is the bald eagle's hearing? The bald eagle makes a loud cry sound in the wild sometimes. Is this the only purpose of its hearing? How does the bald eagle breathe? Through its mouth? Are the tiny holes in the beak breathing holes? Does the bald eagle have an acute sense of smell? Most scavenger birds have excellent smell? How do the smell and other senses of a bald eagle compare with those of a turkey vulture? Sdavew7841 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Urban eagles II

I've seen several bald eagles along the Boise River in Boise, Idaho. Sca (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request by thefoolofemmaus

I have a reference for one of the vagrants listed in the "Range" section: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/Bald-Eagle-Lands-Exhausted-in-Ireland/id-fd7744016cc242f2c23ec570762c136a

If someone could add it, that would be awesome.

Thefoolofemmaus (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Added, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bald Eagles are in Protazoa?

I don't know who said this, but this needs to be fixed right now. The person who edited this and said bald eagles were in the rank protazoa was either a vandal of a total biological noob. McBenjamin (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A vandal was tampering with the template.--Mr Fink 03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

feeding section

compromise -> comprise 68.22.157.31 (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect number of bald eagles due to erroneously interpreted reference #123

In the "Population Decline and Recovery Section" it states "Recent estimates indicate that the total population consists of approximately 200,000 eagles today.[123]" However, if you follow the link in reference 123 it actually says "Today, under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, that number [of breeding pairs] is almost 6,000. Although promising, one would wonder how over 200,000 of these birds came to be on the brink of extinction in just a few centuries." The 200k number is clearly meant to have existed at some point, before humans started killing them off for various reasons. The current number of bald eagles is very difficult to precisely say, but extrapolating numbers of "pairs" since 2000 (last year state data was reported) from the US Fish and Wildlife service there are probably 15-20,000 pairs, or around 30-40,000 bald eagles in the USA circa 2013.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/chtofprs.html

Nurburgringer (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed text

Per the above request, and the requester's reply here, I'm removing the following text and reference:

"Recent estimates indicate that the total population consists of approximately 6,000 eagles today."

References

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014

i have a school report about baldeagles.

86.96.84.65 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: - Fascinating, but this facility is so you can requested a change to the article, which you have not done.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information

It seems to be the article has to be carefully revised. I just started translation and already found several doubtful and wrong statements. For example, the sentence "The largest eagles are from Alaska, where large females may weigh up to 7.5 kg (17 lb) and span 2.44 m (8.0 ft) across the wings" is referenced by two hyperlinks to The Cornell Lab of Ornitology and arkive.org. None of them (including archives) presented those facts. Next statement: "Females are about 25% larger than males, averaging 5.6 kg (12 lb), and against the males' average weight of 4.1 kg (9.0 lb)" has 4 references. Well, I'm unable to check "The Bird Almanac" and "Handbook of Avian Body Masses" (what about page numbers?). Referenced "Handbook of the Birds of the World" states the following: "Female larger than male, by mean 9% in size but up to 28% in weight". Another hyperlink is very brief: "Females are larger than males". I understand the article was featured in 2007, when book search was hard and quality standards were poor. But now it's inacceptable situation if we are reading about one of US symbols.--Vicpeters (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

"San Juan Islan" ?66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)  Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Heaviest load carrying

From the article: "Bald eagles have powerful talons and have been recorded flying with a 6.8 kg (15 lb) mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) fawn. This feat is the record for the heaviest load carrying ever verified for a flying bird". I found the following statement in the book "Man-Eaters" by Michael Bright (here): "Lewis Cummings reports having seen a large South American eagle, probably a harpy eagle (Harpiu harpyga) carrying a half-grown deer weighting an estimated 35 lb (16 kg)"--Vicpeters (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request 2015-03-14

Please change "adversely effected" to "adversely affected"

Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Need to change the Sound-Clip

When the sound-clip from Yellowstone National Park is played a caption appears reading "Hitler did nothing wrong". This should probably be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.117.142 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A new sound clip from the Yellowstone National Park is now displayed (same audio?) with the text "Nine 11 was an inside job". This appears to be embedded in the audio file. VariSHF (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Request edit for "Longevity and mortality" section

The first sentence of the section states the oldest confirmed in the wild was 28 years of age.

This information is outdated.

Even at the date of the article in the citation(June 2007), the oldest was 29 years and 9 months which was found dead in March 2005, second oldest was 29 years 8 months in January 2000.

As of June 8th 2015 the oldest Bald eagle in the wild was killed by a car in upstate New York at the age of 38 years old. This is not updated on the USGS North american bird longevity website. I am sure it will in the coming weeks. Here is the link to the news article on newsday.com: oldest-bald-eagle-in-nation-dies

The USGS website was last updated in April of 2015 and currently has the Oldest Bald eagle at 33 years and 5 months (Killed in Wisconsin by a car). You can search for it here and select the species "Bald Eagle" from the drop down menu.

JJN1991 (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

Please change this sentence:

"Further population increases in Washington may limited by the availability of late winter food, particularly salmon."

to this sentence:

"Further population increases in Washington may be limited by the availability of late winter food, particularly salmon."

This is because the original sentence is missing the word "be" between the words "may" and "limited":

Rruntsch (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Bald eagle. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/raptors/diet.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.doi.gov/news/07_News_Releases/070628.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fws.gov/northeast/newsroom/eagle.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Haliaeetus_leucocephalus.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/eagles.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Bald_Eagle_dtl.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://esrpweb.csustan.edu/speciesprofiles/profile.php?sp=hale
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/Whats_in_a_name/default.cfm?id=19
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=27
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415182
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124145720/http://www.pequotmuseum.org/Home/CrossPaths/CrossPathsSpring2003/TheSacredMessengers.htm to http://www.pequotmuseum.org/Home/CrossPaths/CrossPathsSpring2003/TheSacredMessengers.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eagles.org/moreabout.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-bald_eagle.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12145_12202-32581--,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ar22hstclq771.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus30nrj709.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa1.1/lawrence.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nben.ca/environews/media/mediaarchives/05/july/legacy.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202447,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eagles.org/moreabout.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eagles.org/moreabout.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/institute/fak14/ipmb/phazb/pubwink/1996/20_1996.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)