Talk:Red kite

Derwent Valley

The article refers to Derwent Valley indicating it is in the UK. The page pointed to is in Tasmania. It needs to be disambiguated but I do not know which River Derwent to point it to as there are several. May be someone who knows of the area for reintroduction can oblige?

Keith D 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Stephen Wood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdboy123 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Overview

This awsomely graceful bird of prey is unmistakable with its reddish-brown body, angled wings and forked tail. The red kite was rescued from national extinction by one of the world's longest running protection programmes, and has now been successfully re-introduced to England and Scotland. It is an Amber List species because of its historical decline.

The red kite is now much more widespread and can be sometimes seen on the south downs. these birds eat Carrion, worms and small mammals.

Dangers: As scavengers, red kites are particularly sensitive to illegal poisoning. Illegal poison baits set for foxes or crows are indiscriminate and kill protected birds and other animals. It is estimated that at least half of our native Welsh kites die through this deliberate abuse of agricultural chemicals.

Breeding: Adult red kites are sedentary birds, and they occupy their breeding home range all year. Each nesting territory can contain up to five alternative nest sites. Both birds build the nest on a main fork or a limb high in a tree, 12-20m high. It is made of dead twigs and lined with grass and sheep’s wool.

Re-rated as C class

I have changed the rating of this article to C as it is woefully undereferenced and appears to contain a lot of original research e.g.

"The Kites are a common sight above the houses of the Buckinghamshire villages of Stokenchurch, Stone, Whitchurch and Haddenham and also the towns of Princes Risborough and as far east as Chesham, the Oxfordshire towns of Didcot and Wallingford, and their surrounding areas. Sightings are common along the M40 between Oxford and Wycombe, all the way down to Reading and Newbury on the M4"

Where does that information come from? The section on "Behaviour" is almost completely devoid of references, reference 1, which is used 4 times, goes to a wikipedia page and a dead link. Also the section on "Populations and trends by country" has a list of souces (i.e. The following figures (mostly estimates) have been collated from various sources.[10][11][2][12][13]) rather than inline references for each figure. Richerman (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now updated the dead link Richerman (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Spotted

I understand the main article is not the place for gossip so this is the best place. I have spotted the Red Kite in Sulhamstead, Berks, half way up the hill. Another location 20 miles away is Sheldons road in Hook, Hants where it passes by early each afternoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.156.253 (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I just saw one (I think) over Thorpe Park Business Park (About 8 miles SE of Harewood, Leeds, as mentioned in the article.) Awesome. 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Oops. Hit 5 tildes then not 4. Markfiend (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the editoral reference to Red Kites over High Wycombe. I've taken photos including six or seven birds wheeling over my mother's house in NE High Wycombe (district Totteridge) which I published on my blog. I've also seen them over the M40 (obviously rather difficult to take photos while driving). Twice in the last two years I believe I've seen a Red Kite wheeling at highish altitude over Twickenham; I recognise the flight, but have not been able to take a photograph.

If you want a whole flock of Red Kites wheeling over the landscape, try the Farm "Toyes" (I think) outside Henley-on-Thames, (the farm is in Berkshire), where there can be tens of the birds in the sky as you drive past.

Deapthought (aka Deepthought). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.16.97 (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for gossip either, or for general discussions of the subject - they are for for discussing improvements to the article. see wp:talk page Richerman (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if original research, citing its publishing (i.e. mine) is treated as gossip and/or not allowed, this is the last time I bother to waste my time updating Wikipedia. Pointing out these birds are regularly seen low flying over housing estates, towns (and ultimately over London) isn't interesting? I did not bother to sign in to write this...Deapthought [aka Deepthought] signing out for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.19.237 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Northants

There is a colony near Corby in Northamptonshire close to the A43 towards Stamford. I have spotted them above the road towards Kettering at Geat Oakley, and also above the old disused airfield at Lower Benefield. Guy (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is, in fact, the "Rockingham Forest" population—GRM (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mobbing

The definition of mobbing in the relevant artice is "an antipredator behavior which occurs when individuals of a certain species mob a predator by cooperatively attacking or harassing it" The picture in the "distribution and behaviour" shows one red kite flying above an eagle. The caption said a red kite mobbing a white tailed eagle" and as there is only one red kite I changed "mobbing" to "harassing" as one bird clearly can't mob. It has however been changed back so I've changed it again. To be honest, there's nothing in the article about mobbing and all the picture shows is one bird flying above another so it doesn't really illustrate anything and I'm tempted to remove it altogether, however, if it's to stay in, at least get the caption right. Please don't change it back to "mobbing" unless you can explain how one bird can cooperatively attack a predator. Richerman (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never known any of the many birders or professional ornithologists I know refer to such behaviour, by a single bird, as anything other than "mobbing". The term is also used for single birds in, for example [1], [2], [3], [4], this from 1954 & the RSPB. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, point made, I stand corrected - thanks for the explanation. It seems an incorrect use of the English language to me and in the OED under "mob" it says "of a group of birds, fly noisily and aggressively close to a predator", but if it's used for single birds by professionals then that's what we have to go with. Perhaps someone should change the definition in the Animal mobbing behavior article. Now, if we could have a picture that actually showed the behaviour, like one of your examples it would be a lot more useful :) Having just been on holiday near Aberystwyth I have to say that, from my limited observations, it seems to be the red kites that get mobbed most of the time rather than the other way round. I saw them being attacked by crows and gulls on a number of occasions. Richerman (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

According to this report, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yz3t2/Debating_Animals_Series_2_The_Kestrel_and_Red_Kite/, the term Shithawk or Shitehawk should redirect here. Seriously, check the refernce! Chrisrus (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare

"In the United Kingdom Red Kites were once so common that William Shakespeare described London as " a city of Red Kites and Crows"."

Not as far as I can find he didn't. The phrase "the city of kites and crows" appears in Coriolanus (IV.v.34-38), a Roman story, so even at a fairly imaginative stretch Shakespeare is only referring to London by analogy. Sergeirichard (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch -- I've removed the offending statement now. BabelStone (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"giving rise to their common name in Elizabethan England - Shitehawk" seems to be a fabrication as well. Google Books indicates that "Shitehawk" was WWII era nickname for the Black Kite found in India and Egypt. I can find no evidence that it was known ny this name during Elizabethan times. BabelStone (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)::

Listen to this BBC radio report about the "Shithawk" or "Shitehawk" :url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yz3t2/Debating_Animals_Series_2_The_Kestrel_and_Red_Kite

I will listen to it later today, but my immediate response is that people sitting around a table in a radio studio are not reliable sources, even if they are experts in their fields, because their memory may be faulty (hence the misremembering of the Shakespeare quote as referring to London). I have searched Google Books for "shitehawk", "shithawk", "shite hawk" and "shit hawk", and found many 20th century examples of this word/phrase, but not a single example that dates it back to Elizabethan times. Take a look at this Google Ngram that shows no usage pre-1940s. I will be happy to reinstate the name if we can find a reliable print source that indicates that: 1) that this term was in common use during Elizabethan times; and 2) the term referred to the Red Kite. BabelStone (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he clears the matter up. AsI recall, it wasn;;t shakespere, it was the other guy. give it a listen, it's[[wp:rs}}. Chrisrus (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've listened to the program now, and the presenter Rod Liddle is the only source for Red Kites being called shitehawks, and he provides no citation or other evidence for "shitehawk" ever having been used to refer to the Red Kite, either now or "centuries ago". Indeed the only expert called upon to verify the term tells us: "The kites in India are Black Kites, which are actually the commonest species of raptor in the world, ... and I imagine that shitehawk was probably a name that arose there from people from the British Empire who went out and saw this bird and called it that". That the shitehawk refers to the Black Kite rather than the Red Kite is confirmed by the OED (you can probably access it online through your local library in the UK) which specifies in its entry for shite-hawk that the term is 20th century military slang for the Black Kite, and its earliest quotation for the term dates to 1944: [deleted]

As the OED is a reliable source, and is highly unlikely to have missed any earlier historical references known only to Rod Liddle, I think we can close the discussion now, and change the redirects of Shitehawk to Black Kite. (On the other hand, the OED dates the nickname windfucker for the Kestrel back to 1599, but that isn't in the Kestrel article.) BabelStone (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion was continued at Talk:Shithawk, and a new article has now been created at Shite-hawk. BabelStone (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Rare species?

The introductory para stated this is a "rare species" - by what definition? It may not be common but it is far from rare in many parts of its wide range. Detailed information on distribution and status is further down the article including an estimate of 19K-25K pairs in Europe. I deleted the reference to rarity in the intro as it seemed misleading. Newburyjohn (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The UK population continues to increase and they are an almost daily sight over the city of Oxford where I live. I understand the population is so high in some locations that they are once again starting to be considered a pest, or at least a nuisance. --Ef80 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Too many similar photos

This article now has 3 photos of a Red Kite in flight which are almost identical. I propose at least 1, if not 2, of these are deleted as being superfluous.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and contemplated removing one of them when the most recent one was added. I suggest keeping either the Spain or Sweden picture as they are the best quality, and removing the Berkshire picture. The picture of the Red Kite harassing the white-tailed eagle is also of poor quality and could be removed. BabelStone (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the harrasing Red Kite photo.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed some of the poorer quality ones and rearranged the others - still not sure if the Belgian one adds much though. The problem with kites is that they hang about in the sky just asking to be photographed, so there are lots of similar photos of them about and everyone wants to add theirs to the article. Richerman (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have just reinstated the "Red kite in flight at Gigrin farm" photo. I will be honest from the outset. This is my photo, however, I will not enter into an edit war about this, rather, I am seeking concensus here. I believe the photo should stay because it is the only one showing the markings on the upper surface of the wings when in flight, the bird fills a reasonable proportion of the frame, it captures the dynamic nature of the feathers, it is not taken against a blue sky which makes it easier to see details on the flying bird, and it is taken at one of the locations mentioned in the article. I accept the photo is a little "soft" - this is a chracteristic of my digital zoom lens at its longest focal length, however, I feel the positive aspects of the image outweigh this.

The article still has two almost identical photos of the bird from underneath against a blue sky__DrChrissy (talk)

I've no problem with that. Looking at the thumbnail it looks as if the tail feathers go out of the edge of the photo but actually, when you view it full size they don't. I agree that the other two are very similar but I didn't want to take too many out and I couldn't find anything different but of good quality in commons. Richerman (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I can't pick out which one of the two Kite in the Sky pictures is best and I feel it rather unfair to remove one arbirarily, so perhaps both should stay.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I've found one of a different view on commons, cropped it and replaced the Swedish kites in the sky image. Richerman (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red kite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105022352/http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/nature/mediaexplorer/?theme_group=species&theme=birds&set=red_kite to http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/nature/mediaexplorer/?theme_group=species&theme=birds&set=red_kite

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Red kite feeding in Wales

Information should be added from this brief, barely notable and poorly referenced article, into the main Red kite article in the United Kingdom section. Mountain^cirque 12:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - seems totally reasonable. Blythwood (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - seems reasonable. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The main info on the sites for Red Kite observation in Wales have now been added to this article. Please review and make any further amends before the merg is finalised and the source page can be deleted. Mountain^cirque 10:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Red kite. 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://www.environ.ie/en/Heritage/NationalParksandWildlife/News/MainBody%2C5384%2Cen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406174556/http://www.ndp.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=%2Fdocuments%2Ffeatured-projects%2Fgoldeneagle.htm to http://www.ndp.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=%2Fdocuments%2Ffeatured-projects%2Fgoldeneagle.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080928031357/http://news.scotsman.com/latest-scottish-news/Red-Kite-numbers-soar-to.4492268.jp

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. 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red kite. 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/20121103112619/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/shakespeares-red-kite-returns-to-london-after-an-absence-of-150-years-522771.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/shakespeares-red-kite-returns-to-london-after-an-absence-of-150-years-522771.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. 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Red kite. 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/20150509150050/http://www.redkites.co.uk/ to http://www.redkites.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211091642/http://www.berksoc.org.uk/surveys/kites_and_buzzards_2006_results.shtml to http://www.berksoc.org.uk/surveys/kites_and_buzzards_2006_results.shtml

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. 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Endemic" or "native"?

I note that user 86.83.56.115 has an aversion to use of the term "endemic" in relation to this species and the Western Palearctic, and has changed it to "native".

While "native" is correct, and historically "endemic" would not have been. One understands from the text of the article that the species is indeed now endemic to the Western Palearctic as a breeding bird, having been extirpated in the east of its former range. —GRM (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't a transcontinental region such as Palearctic a little to widespread for the term "endemic" to make sense?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This is my point. In biology (not medicine), the word endemic is meant to denote the distribution of a species which is (historically) restricted to a small geographical entity. It is generally used in conservation contexts in order to use in contrast to native to underline how important a specific geographical entity is in relation to the distribution of a specific species, i.e., if a specific geographical entity should warrant conservation protections. It is not just a buzzword; a single development might wipe out the species. In this case the species is native to three continents: the Western Palearctic can indeed be seen as a discreet geographical entity, but it is huge, so there is little reason to use the word endemic. One could then also say humans are endemic to earth, in fact every known species is endemic to earth. In this sense endemic has been depreciated into a synonym for native and no longer useful as a discreet term. Some Wikipedia editors apparently read too much conservation websites without critical thought, as the term is used as a buzzword in the wrong way throughout this website. This is bad, because due to this overuse/depreciation, when an ecologist tells some government official or person a specific species is endemic to a specific aquifer or field, the official will think "so what, we need a borehole/development, it can be endemic elsewhere..."

Grmanners, I think you may be doubly confused here. The species has always been native to the Western Paleartic, Iran is included in that. Second, when a species stops breeding in an area, this doesn't mean it is no longer native to the area.

One other point. The word extinct is also used somewhat incorrectly in this article, extirpated is a better word.

Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Rarity - Some Critical Thought

While I'm at it. Not a criticism of the article per se, but the tone/bias and quality of the data. This article is heavily dependent on the information/perspective promoted by Birdlife International. Digging somewhat deeper into the data, there are some things which bug me:

• BI goes on about the reduction in numbers in Germany in the 1990s, and use the 1990 estimated population as a baseline/control, but what is not mentioned is that the population in Germany tripled or more in the decades leading up to 1990.

• BI claims intentional and secondary poisonings are the main threats to the maintenance of the population, however, looking at Germany, where the main population decrease happened, the decline can be linked to the reunification and the subsequent modernisation of agriculture in Eastern Germany (specifically waste/carcass management, more hygienic slaughterhouses, lower wastage and pests), poisoning is not a factor. Regarding intentional poisoning, the only references to this are a handful of high-profile incidents during the British reintroduction, mostly in the late 1980s. Regarding secondary poisoning, this appears to be related to the mass use of superwarfarins to control voles in Spain in the 1990s; BI refers in this case to certain speeches during conferences and general information sources, but how trustworthy is this? I am not aware that this method is legal in the EU any more. Or are they referring to historical cases such as elimination programs in Britain and elsewhere a few centuries ago, and the use of DDT in the 1950s and 1960s? There is a bit of conflict of interest/local perspective here: the people who wrote the IUCN red list page for BI are the same who wrote the report on the decline in Spain and blame it on poisonings.

• BI downgraded this species from 'least concern' to 'near threatened' in 2005 due to a report on the decline in Spain (and Germany) from 1990 to 2000, but the population in general appears to be increasing virtually everywhere else, with the range expanding throughout northern Europe. The numbers don't appear to add up to reach the 20% reduction between 1990 to 2000, but even if they did, the population appears to be increasing in the two decades since, yet the conservation status remains unchanged. One can also question the accuracy of estimates of historical population numbers, the high 1977 number for Spain for example, on what is that estimate based and can it really be compared to modern population estimates?

• This article is further exaggerating information somewhat. In the case of Germany, the population was estimated at 12,000 to 18,000 in the early 2000s, but only the lower number is given here, whereas the much less trustworthy number from the 1980s is reported in full. In France and Italy the population has increased, according to the data provided in the table, but is said to be decreasing or unknown, respectively. Ukraine has almost no data provided, but the population is said to be decreasing (it is extirpated as of 2003 according to the Red List for the Ukraine, but still... no evidence given here). In Hungary the editor has chosen the lowest modern population count available (1998), whereas the 2018 count has 41 pairs, showing an increase. Idem in Austria, the 2000 count, if accurate, is possibly the lowest available since it's recolonisation in the 1970s; the 2015 count is 28 to 35 pairs, again showing an increase. The population in Belgium and Poland is as of 2018 much higher than reported in the data from the 1990s used here (pop. increases of 400% to 4000% since the 1980s!). Cabo Verde should be left out entirely -the population in the 1980s is probably mostly of hybrids, there appears to be no decline in numbers here, but it is not possible to tell.

Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the UK reintroduction has been hugely successful (perhaps even too successful) and individual birds or pairs are now a very common sight throughout England and Wales. The 2014 infobox map probably understates the UK range. --Ef80 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Cultural significance

Hi, I have added a new Cultural significance section as other Taxonomy articles, and added sourced info on the bird's association with Powys, and it's unofficial status as the national bird of Wales.

Have also repurposed the unsourced statement that Kites (not specifically Red Kites) had negative associations in Medieval England as a lead-in for it's use (again, not specifically Red Kites) as a similie in King Lear. I do not have the background to improve or source these statements but felt the new section was more fitting for them. Cymrogogoch (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You copied the article Lion? Why? S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)