thinfor

I think without talking into details, the head color pattern (the dark patch around the eye) and the size (that can be compared with white-collared crow) are very clearly seen.
Simply by elimination, the most possible guess (I say guess) is Northern Goshawk.
Let's wait for the final decision of RC.

thinfor

So far, I regarded this post as an ID with the help of some record shots.  The bird was found during a birdwatching class in MP where the bird in doubt was quite far away and could not be clearly seen without help of binoculars (even telescope is required).  

So I don't know why "It must be emphasized here birdwatching is much more than action with electronic-assisted devices" is commented.  Because the whole group of beginners as well as the leaders were not sure about this bird, it's very reasonable to take record shots for ID.  I think it's undoubtedly better than word descriptions and drawings right?  Whether the use of technology is good or not depends on how to use it.  I recognize that all participants in this thread are good birdwatchers, at least not SEDENTARY and have a good balance on using photographic devices during birdwatching.  As HFCheung said, we know electronic devices just assist our birdwatching.  The bird would not have been found if those group of people just stayed at a particular point without observation and just concentrated on the DC screen.  I can't see why their effort of using non-electronic human senses to observe the birds has been ignored.

Just wanna comment that being two extremes is not the only way to treat this kind of controversy.  If one uses electronic devices for the following purposes, why not?
- to show the beauty of birds to public, to insight others to love the nature more
- to record for scientific researches so as to know more about our wildlifes in the same planet
- to serve as education purpose, a picture is more than a thousand words

Among the participants in this thread, I can feel that we never rule out anything but statistically, so far most of us incline to think it's a NG.  I think all the participants have used their birding knowledge for ID.  I still remembered when I attended the birdwatching course, I was acquired some basic guidelines for bird ID:
1)  Observe habitat, some birds will not likely appear in some terrains
2)  Size, very crucial, when beginners even don't know how to differentiate between a common magpie and a magpie robin
3)  Distinct features, with precaution that every bird varies
4)  Try to do elimination and make the MOST POSSIBLE GUESS

My guess was come from the above logic. My point (2) has nearly ruled out Eurasian Sparrowhawk (ES) since even a female just has a wingspan of 71.5-79cm (from book).  The white-collared crow (WCC) with size around 21inches (also from book) should be larger than an ES.  Now the photos showed clearly the bird was even larger than a WCC, so I thought it looked more like a NG, despite from the fact that the viewing angle or resolution angle may have some discrepancies but will not be very significant. Of course I will be glad to learn if an ES's size can vary so much (even outside the range between M and F).

Since 2008 when I started birdwatching, I haven't upgraded my camera but just borrowed a friend of mine an old telescope to facilitate my birdwatching.  I just did some shots for the birds I've seen for recording purposes and shared my joy among friends.  But then now I was grouped as an unobservant birdwatcher without "basic observation which activate one's brain to high levels of active learning (by building and modifying mind maps and reinforcing and wiring up my brain cell networks) and less on muscular reflexes.   Also, I do not intend to label any birdwatchers but just a simple ID discussion I am labelled to be a "photographic bird analyser more than true birdwatchers, especially among the young ones".  I have been busy recently and I can't go birdwatching much but I still observe the birds near my residence when I walk doggies with my bare eyes and ears.  I am happy with just one or two common tailorbirds.  But then I again was commented as "photographic identification ones which are nothing different from surfing on the internet."

May I ask why such a straightforward ID using just help of a few record photos would bring me the above?  I think it was not so fair to me, as well as other birdwatchers.

Among the messages in the thread, I know that pitarhk who is so dedicated to black kite observation.  I know Matthew, Brendank, kmike, subbuteo who are so generously share their bird records near and outside their residential/working areas.  And all the rest who regularly provides comments to new birdwatchers.

thinfor

To Mr Tai,

First of all, thanks for your long reply.

Actually, I don't want to give you feedback for your last 2 messages in this thread.  It's already out of the gist of this thread.  My second message in this thread already said  "I regarded this post as an ID with the help of some record shots".

But then I was puzzled why "commenting on trends and the present general birding situation" occurred in this thread?  Was that relevant?  If it did, why not it was a separate thread?  Or why the comment was specifically present in this thread?  Everyone was trying hard to ID this bird, solely.

Of course, being an experienced birder like you, Mr Tai, you should have your reason(s) so I carefully read your message to follow your logic.

Please review what you commented quoted below (I think you did, as you said in the reply):
It must be emphasized here birdwatching is much more than action with electronic-assisted devices. Proper knowledge and experience of birdwatching is of paramount importance. Modern people tend to pay little attention to that importance and focus on the application of photographic devices almost alone. As photgraphic skills take top priority, their progression in birwatching skills and anything touching ornithology lag far behind. Also, photographic activities makes birders sedentary, diminishing greatly birdwatching's athletic aspects.

I reckoned that the above was your arguments.   In your #27 message, you said those arguments "are only commenting on the present trend of shifting birdwatching to bird-photographing which has its obvious and serious shortcomings of which I have listed some only".  I really did not understand indeed so I asked "why such a straightforward ID using just help of a few record photos" would bring you this idea on your mind specifically, not the other common ID posts?  I don't repeat the situation when that bird was found (previous posts have already said so).  At that moment, in order to collect as much information and details as the observers could, taking record shots were instincts because it's the fastest way.  BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WILL NOT DO NON-PHOTO BIRD RECORDS, NO MATTER CAMERAS ARE PRESENT OR NOT!  As an ex-birdwatching course classmate, I have been learnt to record all my birding results, at least my limited observations as I was green.  Birdwatching course leaders also convey this idea to fellow classmates all the time.  Your idea that "To be able to fully identify a bird, photos are just not enough" has been well addressed.  May I ask whether the above makes any sense to you?    

Mr Tai, did you still remember the times when you started birdwatching with very scarce resources and no experiences?  Binoculars not in good condition, birds flushed in less than 1 second, birds calling but never recognized where and what they were.  All the beginners were desperate and frustrated because THEY STILL LACK SKILLS AND EXPERIENCES FOR OBSERVATION.  Every tiny bit of this kind of frustration has built up in observers' minds.  Someone might fail to have interests.  But how about a shot that served as an encouragement?  It is an element that encourage them to observer more and get the birds' details in the photo.  Visual demonstration is undoubtedly a very effective way in birdwatching, combined with other elements like detailed descriptions and sound clips.

I really don't think that bird photographing brings negative outcomes as you said.  At least, your consideration of this NG also bases on the photos in the book!  Please understand that your inverse of transposition that "if don't take photos, good observation skills, if take photos, bad observation skills" IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE.  On the other hand, I noticed that if one is not observant and care about birds' habitat and behavior, one hardly can take good bird photos.  Bird photographers also spend their time to know about birds.  That's why they can take good shots.  Before they press the shutter, they observe and watch the birds even longer than a common birdwatcher does!  Your above transposition has somehow indirectly labelled those bird photographers AS WELL AS good birdwatchers to be non-skillful, "far lag behind" birdwatchers (do you think this would be a criticism?).  This is, what I recognized, the misunderstanding that you have shown in your message.

BTW, Mr Tai, frankly, have you ever birdwatched through a DC screen from a lens or a telescope?  It doesn't make any difference at all (except you watch thru an eyepiece not a screen for normal birdwatching).  You still can observe anything that a common birdwatcher can observe, just with the advanatge that you can also take a shot for whatever purposes.  As AJohn said, "this thread actually shows the importance of the combined approach".  If you think it's different, it's just you're not getting used to it.  Soon you will if you try.  Many observers just treat their DC with long lens as a telescope to spot the birds with binoculars for shorter distances.  They can still follow the birds nicely and observe behaviors.  Do you get the word 'combined'?  

For your comment "talked about a lot of young birders who were also (more) skilful in photographic identification (than field identification skills). I didn't say they did not birdwatch and relied solely/heavily on cameras."   I think this is also your misunderstanding as well.  For young birders nowadays, photographic ID can be well practised all the time and this experience can be surely fastly accumulated.  Field identification needs more practical experiences that surely builds longer.  Very trivial.  But that also DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEIR FIELD IDENTIFICATION WILL NOT GROW AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHIC ID.  All the things start from ABC.  In kindergartens, kids learn how to ID animals like giraffe, kangeroo and rhinoceros in books only.  Are all parents able to take them for field identification?!  If someone loves birdwatching, their sense will grow and they know how important field ID is.  If they don't, it may contribute to many reasons but not just because they do photographic ID.  Same transposition logic problem as above.

Finally, what you said "of those who participated here I found none who are experts of the bird in question. A majority opinion has been reached solely because there has been good luck of the presence of a crow. Other than that, nobody has been given us a comprehensive and convincing analysis."
It looks contradicting because in your message you said "However other points in favour of it being a NG not mentioned by others are: a) pronounced head protrusion b) heavy body keel".  From this comment, I supposed you did see some NG supporting points that were NOT on size, like:
1) white strpe over the eye (from sdavid)
2) bold eye patch (from sdavid)
3) curved, trailing edges to the wings (from sdavid)
4) it looks much bulkier then most Sparrowhawks (from kmatthew)
5) tail is rather short compare to Sparrowhawks (from kmatthew)
Compared with two of my bird books, we nearly hit all the main features (including your pronounced head protrusion), disregarding the flying behavior that should only be noticed by observers themselves.  Ironically, both books said the size may be quite a problem as males and females vary.  So were the photos just nice enough to strengthen our guess for NG?  

To conclude, I examined and just agreed on your words that present general birding situation involves more photos.  But as the reason I mentioned above, I think this combined approach has facilitated our birdwatching much.  I suppose we all love to see we have more birding records and hence encourage public to cherish our natural wildlife.  As long as the photographers are educated to know how to take photos without making too much interefence with the birds, I hold the above view.  

From 鬼谷子·本經符, 言多必有數短之處. Precise and concise may do well if you attempt to write even better.  Just my humble 2 cents.  

thinfor

To Mr Tai,

I think right before your message #18, we, at least, talked about NG (may not point to features for every word).  What I said "So far, I regarded this post as an ID with the help of some record shots" was on message #19, right after yours.  This was the time when I tried to read your message and follow your logic.  Is that clear? How come should I know the content of the threads in the future?  

I am very interested to know why logic is only applied to mathematics but not daily life events, such as this.  That's why misunderstanding happens when members read, follow your logic and try to understand your thoughts but what they understand is not what you intend to express.

I couldn't notice any 'unwarranted verbal attacks'.  I guess this referred to mine?  My apologies to this if you think this is offensive.  Yet I've already expressed my idea and I still made the judgement open ended upon decision of RC, clearly said.

I agree that making a good balance between photograph taking and bird observation is quite hard but that doesn't mean impossible.  I notice many birdwatchers as well as photographers observe the birds for the first moment until they find satisfactory and then distribute some of the rest of time, if the bird is still there, for photo shots.  Let me give you a humble advice too.  Everyone's capability is different and one will grow up and see how one judges oneself to utilize one's abilities.  I am not sure whether I can do both well (I have no money to equip photographing devices) but I am sure many of my friends do make a good balance on that.  They have well demonstrated to me.  

Moreover, I'm not sure whether I have both what you said "fair share of natural endowments and some fortunate encounters".  Before I started birdwatching, I always spent my time to hike all parts of HK and touch the beautiful countryside and wildlife.  Plants, insects, animals, birds, rocks, caves, beaches, stars, climate, etc, as long as the subjects are related to nature, I am very interested in it.  Over 20 years of hiking experiences, I'm very used to touch the wild without any help of electronic devices, unless a camera for record shots.  My general idea to birdwatching as well as nature, what you may refer to 'intelligence', may not be as simple and naive as you imagine.    However, at least, I will not doubt or judge any birdwatchers' ideas or behaviours until I know him/her well.  Good luck to you too.

About your 2nd reply.  I finally recognized that your Kwai Kuok (Kuk?) Chi was 鬼谷子.

You like to express judgements, I guess? I don't think 鬼谷子is always right or wrong but in any occasion whether some wordings like I quoted are useful and meaningful, I will take it and store it in my 'database'.  My words, '2 cents', are precise and concise.  If that 2 cents is 'too less' for you, just ignore it, no problem.  Actually, my second reply, to other members, may be also lengthy.  But, as you said, since I have to make you understand why we have misunderstanding in this thread, it might be the shortest that I could do..."I don't consider my pieces here too long".

I think you have made an irrelevant counterexample for what 鬼谷子said.  The 言 in 言多必有數短之處, that I understand, means the interaction among people at the same moment.  The plays Shakespeare has written are an art.  The interaction is not the same as above.  You feel what Shakespeare plays have given to you but you will not express your thoughts to Shakespeare at the same time (at least Shakespeare doesn't acknowledge).  But comes down to it, what does this example indicate?  I can also quote 易經 and 道德經 that are short enough and they are also gems for philosophy to support myself.  The point is that my quote is not a 全稱命題 (universal proposition).  So a counterexample is not necessarily given to disprove this proposition.  So have you recognized 言多必有數短之處 now?  That "2 cents", take it or not take it, your choice.  I remembered your quote from Confucius, "內省不咎，乎何憂何懼 ", If you think this advice is not appropriate, why bother (何憂何懼) to think of an example?  

Even from your last message, you are taking risk to express that "Speak less and talk carefully is a good advice for mediocrities".  I regard that is a statement and our readers' common logic applies again.  I also feel that mediocrities is not a word of praise.  Humans can be emotional but one should be responsible for what one said.  I think some members here may speak less and talk carefully but they are not mediocrities at all.  Please come back to the main track and just discuss/argue the points that we both have expressed.  Such statement is not necessarily shown here.  I don't mind being said to be a mediocre.  But please let other members alone.  Do you finally know why misunderstanding usually happens in your messages in this thread because you quote 全稱命題 (universal proposition) in an inappropriate situaton?  My humble 2 cents again, forget it if you don't agree. It's your choice.

I think I have to end my reply here.  We should both be considerate as most of the members do not expect such unrelated lengthy arguments in the thread about NG that may be a HKF.  I keep my fingers crossed and will congratulate this with my friends.

BTW, I'm very curious too why you asked my real name?  It's clearly shown in the signature at the foot of each of my message.  PC, though are electronic devices, do save us time for achieving more tasks, agree?  Maybe you can use the signature function as well.  Also, if you still refer to our discussion, we'd better leave here and just use P.M. offered in this forum.  Least disturbance to other members.  Will that be a win-win-win situation for you, me and our fellow members?

thinfor

Though I'm the one who argued with Mr Tai, it's just limited to the views expressed here in this spread.

I also read every birding record posted by Mr Tai, like other birding records from other fellow members.  I must say thank you for anyone who would like to share with their birding records here in this forum.