And to answer your question, no, I didn’t read the Wiki article. Nor do I personal knowledge of the subject matter. I was certainly pulled into the article by the subject, lead, and writing, but frankly, I stopped reading when I saw Wikipedia presented as a source.

(And you weren’t snarky, No worries.)

It does not explain causes, just shows a negative trend which indicates that the number of observations has dropped over time (1966-2006).

My cherished go-to source for more timeless topics is my set of 1961 Encyclopedia Britannicas. Just the writing and essay structure is a pleasure in itself. In fact if you can believe it we have two complete sets. And, though I’m not sure if this reveals a bit too much about me…one is in the bedroom.

Just in case you want to refresh your memory on Malta’s principal exports before bedtime.

Checked the site you linked but after scrolling down I did not see, or overlooked, the species English or house sparrow. It is interesting to learn, however, that their numbers are declining; I wonder why.

Wikipedia articles are all over the map as you know. Some are good and some deplorable. The sparrow article seemed reliable. Have you read it?

Many books, research papers, and other texts are as vulnerable to being poor or biased or misleading sources as are websites. It’s my job as a writer to judge whether this, or any other source, is a reliable one or not.

Between Endangered Species laws and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16U.S.C. 703-712), all species except the House Sparrow, feral pigeon, European starling, and non-migratory game birds like pheasants, gray partridge, and sage grouse, are currently “protected”.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act says in part:

“Unless and except as permitted by regulations, …it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner…to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, …possess, offer for sale, sell, …purchase, import…any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird…”

[link]

The definition of a “migratory bird” includes those species that are not in a scientific sense, “migratory” but usually not birds that have been introduced to the US.

As George mentioned, it is important that a person who plans to “take” any species of unprotected bird be able to tell the difference between a protected species and one that is unprotected. This isn’t always as easy as it seems. If a person would have some “problem” with birds, calling a pest control company that is likely have all the proper federal permits would probably be better than harming the birds in some way. Or you could call your local city ornithologist or a birdwatcher friend for an identification confirmation.
Some would definitely argue that bird like House Sparrows or European Starlings are worth leaving alone. It is true that folks can learn a great deal about birds by observing any of the unprotected species, especially if that is all the types of birds that you have to observe.

House Sparrows are declining in numbers both in Michigan alone, the US and in Europe, overall relative to 1966 levels.
From: USGS Breeding Bird Survey data trends [link]

House Sparrows are abundant in urban areas and they do compete with native species for resources, most obviously nesting sites like Blue Bird/Tree Swallow boxes or tree cavities or Cliff Swallow nests (check out the House Sparrows that take over the Cliff Swallow nests under the east side of the large bridge at Gallup Park).

Hope this covers some of the things you were wondering about.

Deaver D. Armstrong
Natural Area Preservation
City of Ann Arbor
1831 Traver Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
734-794-6627

Wikipedia is NOT an authoritative resource. Its content is not verifiably reviewed and its authors are not verifiably vetted. There is nothing truly authoritative about it. While it’s true the site contains factual information, any facts are a byproduct of chance and must be ignored for journalistic purposes.

I realize the author of this article referred to Wikipedia to support a very minor piece of information, which may ultimately be factual, but doing so detracts from the author’s credibility and that of the Chronicle. Reputation is everything and Wikipedia erodes journalistic reputations.

Unfortunately, this is the very low standard that passes for journalism these days. Chronicle: I realize your budget is low, but that’s no excuse to give reader’s any reason — however minuscule — to doubt the stories you produce.

Dea Armstrong is the ornithologist who works for the City’s Natural Area Preservation unit. I’ve sent her a message inviting her to take a look.