Talk:Meliphagoidea

Questions
&mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are the "earlier assumptions" those made by the AMNH ornithologists or the ones earlier than that?
 * Do Jønsson and Fjeldså say that merging the spinebills into the Meliphagidae is the most sensible method? If so, I think the suggestion should be worded as coming from them.  If not, the footnote shouldn't cover the suggestion, which might need a citeneeded tag.
 * Is all this going to be changed in ten or twenty years, like the previous proposals? If this seems likely, maybe the article should say things like "Current views are..." and "The most recent analyses suggest..."
 * Why "Sahul"? Never mind.

An Anti Sibley-Ahlquist Diatribe
The current written form of this article (2010/10/12) contains many inflamatory and disparaging remarks against the seminal work of Sibley and Ahlquist. Yes, Sibley and Ahlquist taxononmy made errors... the work is over twenty years old and has been superceeded. But the wording used in this article is simply inappropriate. I am removing these remarks.Grant Gussie (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)