Talk:Raven

Removed information

I don't want to start a reversion war, so I'm just leaving this here. This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raven&diff=695870974&oldid=695870803 If I knew the species, I would have put it there instead of creating a new section. But it isn't listed. There are plenty of types of animals that have an article that lists the animal's diet or lifespan, even if the name of the animal refers to multiple species. 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ravens"

There is a discussion at Talk:Ravens#Requested move 10 May 2019 to make this article primary for the plural to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ravens as valid clades

"These species do not form a single taxonomic group within the genus."

Actually, they mostly do:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-summary-of-the-BAYES-LAGRANGE-ancestral-area-analysis-for-the-genus-Corvus-The-tree-is_fig2_225071838

All non-Australasian ravens form a single clade in Corvus that only includes Corvus albus and Corvus edithae among birds not colloquially called "ravens". Even the Australasian ravens are all sister taxa to each other. Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

As you said, that is including two non-raven species. Ravens, in and of themselves alone, are not a valid taxonomic group.--Khajidha (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is sort of semantics. All non-Australasian ravens are closely related to each other and out of the two "non-raven" species the one is also called "dwarf raven" and the other is noted to be "raven-like" and readily hybridizing with the previous.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet that Australian raven exists, inherently disproving your assertion that all species with the word "raven" in their name form a taxonomic group. In short, the argument doesn't hold water because its self-contradictory. Especially since the passage is specifically about semantics, which is to say what the word means. oknazevad (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You have given examples of ravens that are not in this single group and of non-ravens that are, both conditions which would preclude ravens from being a clade of their own. --Khajidha (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"You have given examples of ravens that are not in this single group." "Yes, "these species do not form a single taxonomic group within the genus.", they represent two, Australasian ravens and non-Australasian ravens. "of non-ravens that are", "non-raven", singular, one out of 8 species, and even this was noted to be extremely raven like. It's not like when it comes to common, traditional and colloquial names of taxa we expect them to had been 100% cladistically correct.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is exactly the point. The word "raven" is a common name, not a scientific one. It does not correspond one-to-one to a single taxonomical subdivision. Which is exactly what the sentence says. oknazevad (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

But nobody actually says "treachery / conspiracy of ravens"

Raise your hand if you've ever heard anyone say "oh look there's a treachery of ravens on the telephone wire". Yeah. I removed a (referenced! shock! horror!) passage about a "treachery of ravens" being a thing. Even if it were, see WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Sadly it was reverted by User:Oknazevad. Just because it has a reference doesn't mean it should be in the article. Yeah the Reader's Digest Big Book of Whacky Sayings lists "raining cats and dogs" but that doesn't mean we add it to rain. --Cornellier (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the links, they're ridiculous references as well - they're basically Geocities pages from the 00s. I'm sure the University of California Golf Club is an authority on avian etymology. Zhutwo (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Evaluating Raven

Evaluation of the article Raven. This article seems to be missing a lot of relevant information regarding ravens. Some missing information includes the bird’s diet, its mating process, whether it has any predators, and its behaviour. Some of the information seems to be unsupported, for example, when referencing the terms for a group of ravens, it states that most people refer to them as a “flock” without providing a reference. The article also uses very few references, some of these references do not seem to be very reputable like Baltimore Bird Club, which appears to be maintained by one man who does not show his credentials. However the article does use lots of images and is organized in a clear and concise way. The tone of the article seems to be unbiased. Despite each of these elements the article does not have a very active talk page.Sloth Mode (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sloth Mode: All of that information you believe is missing can be found in the parent article about the genus Corvus as well as common raven, which is linked in the lead paragraph. Corvus includes ravens, crows, and rooks, all of which are similar in diet, mating, behavior, and so on.

We also have a guideline abbreviated as WP:FIXIT if you see problems that you can fix. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Distinction between crows and ravens

Every time I read these two sentences in the article my brain short circuits.

"There is no consistent distinction between crows and ravens. Names are assigned to different species chiefly based on their size."

I'm currently doing comparative study within the genus and I've never seen any referrence that would support the first sentence. The second sentence seems to be based on an existing scientific premiss but in this usage is incomplete, so it's misleading.

I'm only a student in the subject so I could be completely wrong about the veracity, but shouldn't statements like this which purport to represent a fact also list a citation to support it? Billybareblu (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is stating that the species called "ravens" have no more specific taxonomic connection than with other species in the genus. That is to say, just because two species are both have common names that include "raven" does not mean they are more closely related to each other than they are to other species with "crow" in the common name. And whether or not a species' common name includes "crow" or "raven" is little more than chance without firm criteria. Typically the term "raven" is used for larger species, especially if there's a couple of species that have overlapping territories; in those cases the larger bird will be called a raven, even though it's not actually more closely related to a common raven (the species for which the term "Raven" first arose in English) than to the other birds in the area.

The Australian raven is the classic example, as it wound up being called a raven because it's larger than the little crow, but in reality it's closely related to the little crow and more distant to the common raven, despite the common name giving the opposite (and incorrect) impression. oknazevad (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what I meant when I asked if it should necessarily include a citation. I think those two sentences should be expanded to include clarification that the terms "raven" and "crow" are being used here as common names and not proper taxonomic names such as Corvus corvus which is genetically distint as a species. Also that a citation be added to clarify that. As it is, I think it's likely unclear to the average reader. I'm studying the genus right now and it even threw me off.

The article page for "crow" expresses a similar explanation, but in much clearer terms:

"This article is about (*)bird species with the word "crow" in their common name...

A crow (pronounced /ˈkroʊ/) is a bird of the genus Corvus, or more broadly, a synonym for all of Corvus. The word "crow" is used as part of the common name of many species. The related term "raven" is not linked scientifically to any certain trait but is rather a general grouping for larger-sized species of Corvus."

I think for the average reader this is a much easier explanation to understand, and I suggest that a rewording in similar terms for the raven article would be an improvement Also, I think that a citation to support this premise as a fact should be added.

• this is a clearer example for the raven page but I would tweak it slightly to something like: various species of bird with the word "raven" in their common name.

Billybareblu (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can think of a clearer wording, feel free to drop it here and I'll gladly take a look. oknazevad (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)