Talk:Birdwatching/Archive 1

Hello there. I just wondered if twitching ought to have its own seperate page. I know that birders/birdwatchers and twitchers overlap but "pure" twitchers who travel from one end of the country to another to look at a rare bird are very different to both your usual casual or conservation minded survey making/patch watching type of birdwatcher. I don't know if it's the same in America but twitchers in Britain have their own quite specialised lingo with terms like "Dip out, grip off, dude, sibe, string etc", in fact, thinking about it I'm going to include a link to a little page on the matter. Andrew F. 15:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a few sentences on competitive birding and moved the sentence about "quieter and more relaxed" to go with it.

I also changed the paragraph about censuses to reflect the sort of census I participated in last Sunday and will again this Sunday, which is not limited to a single species. I also reworded the last sentence of that paragraph a little.

My first attempt at Wikipedia. Please let me know how I can improve.

JerryFriedman


 * Did you remember to save your changes? :-( BTW, you can sign your articles with ~ (four tildes), and your name, with alink, and date will appear automagically, like this: Andy Mabbett 10:25, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I sure as heck *thought* I remembered! :-( is right. But I just did a minor edit here and one at National Audubon Society, and those worked, so I'm going to try again with competitive birding.  Thanks for the feedback--it's nice not to be shouting into the void.  And thanks for the tilde tip.

JerryFriedman 16:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Back again. Changes made as above. It feels much better when it works.

And "shouting into the void" wasn't the best choice of words. It's nice not to be zigzagging my way through the boredom and pain, occasionally glancing up through the rain. Pink Floyd!!!

Suggestions are still appreciated.

JerryFriedman 16:53, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I appreciate the improvements that people have made. (And I'm embarrassed that I got the name of the ABA wrong, since I'm a member. I might have noticed it when I wrote the first draft of the article on the ABA, which I've now done).

I disagree with the hyphen in "commonly-used", but I don't want to get into a "reversion war" over such a minor thing. How are such disputes resolved around here? My suggestion would to ask in alt.usage.english, where I'm a regular (so I would ask in an NPOV way).

JerryFriedman 21:01, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerry. For a minor change like that, either flag it up here, as you have done, and see what happens, or just make the change and see if there is any comeback. The only thing to watch, as I'm sure you know, is that you don't change American to rest-of-the-World usage or visa vers. Then the skies really do open! jimfbleak 06:42, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...presumably because Americans outnumber the rest of the world?

Could there be something about photography here as well? --blades 10:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Birding is what birds do, surely?

Cleanup
This article is getting invaded by unstructured clutter, so I've added a cleanup tag. SP-KP 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to improve on the page by adding in external links to the National Audubon Society and the Bird Banding Laboratory; hopefully this will contribute to somewhat better coverage of North America. CarolineStuart 25 June 2006

I did a rather thorough overhaul, but it's still only in its preliminary stages so far as clarity and structure go.

I added the bit about birding vs. birdwatching and did a lot of rearranging.

I realize that there are different perspectives on either side of the pond re: birding, and I wonder if there should be two entries, or at least two sections within this one.

Calling Phoebe Snetsinger "the most successful and prolific birder" caught me by surprise. I did know Phoebe, and although a very gracious woman, she I feel would laugh at this statment too. Merely paying people to show you birds does not make you "the most sucessful" birder. I'd argue that the aforementioned phrase doesn't accurately describe anyone. "Most successful lister"--sure, she was most certainly that. So I changed this part.

As an aside, the first sentence rather made me jump, as someone whose vocation is birding, it's not a hobby to me, so I changed the wording.

-Natureguy1980 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes today in an attempt to fix minor errors that I noticed, and further, to help improve the clarity and conciseness within major sections of the article. Nothing extreme, mind you, but I've eliminated some of the more glaring things I found. --D

Ideal Birdwatching Places
This section is blatantly NPOV, and I've removed it. I will be compiling a list on my personal space of locales frequented by birders throughout the world, so as to remove as much regional bias as can be managed. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 05:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Birding vs. Birdwatching
Although I'm not an expert, I'm not personally aware of the difference in usage or meaning set forth in this section. Even if such a distinction really exists, the language strikes me as fairly biased against "birdwatchers". The current language assumes that "birdwatchers" (as opposed to "birders") are only interested in "aesthetic value" and don't care about what they're looking at. It seems like projection to me. And I'm curious as to who would describle themselves as a "birdwatcher" under this definition. It seems to me that the "birdwatcher" defined here may simply be an amateur birder, a "newbie", or someone who might not identify as a "birdwatcher" any more than as a watcher of nature, animals, or even things in general. Schi 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no one has objected yet, I've removed the birding vs. birdwatching section for now. Schi 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I object. IF it sounds biased then perhaps we should change some wording, but it is a REAL distinction. -Natureguy1980 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Re-added section with some tweaking. Input welcome. -Natureguy1980 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To put this into Wikipedia policy terms, this section strikes me as original research and possibly unverifiable - particularly the language that attempts to account for birder/birdwatchers' motivations or level of interest in what they're doing. But I could be wrong.  I am going to add a verify source tag to the section.


 * I also previously raised the possibility that the "birdwatcher" category that you've defined is the same thing as a "newbie" or "amateur". Again, do people actually use your rubric to describe themselves as "birdwatchers"?  Under your definition of "birdwatcher", a "birdwatcher" could be any random person who looks out their window and thinks "Hey, that's a nice blue jay" - even though that person would probably not reasonably describe themselves as a "birdwatcher".  On the other hand, new/aspiring/amateur birdwatchers/birders would probably be reluctant to describe themselves as "birders" under your definition, but would not define themselves as the "birdwatcher" that enjoys "birds simply for their aesthetic value" and does "not take interest in exactly what it is they are looking at".  My understanding of the distinction is that the term "birder" is the preferred term among the "birding elite". Schi 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a discussion in print, from Pete Dunne on Bird Watching by noted birder Pete Dunne:
 * Some [people who make time to see and enjoy birds] are very dedicated, traveling widely and frequently to view new species or gain greater bird-finding or identification skills. These are the people commonly called birders.
 * Most people who enjoy birds are more temperate in scope, if not enthusiasm. They are most fascinated by the birds they find in their own yards.  These people are frequently referred to as bird watchers.
 * Emphasis in the original. The next paragraph notes that there is no sharp distinction between these categories.-- Coneslayer 00:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have edited the section to reflect the Pete Dunne material, input welcome. Also, I'm ambivalent but perhaps we should move the birding vs. bird watching distinction to later in the article, perhaps after the Overview section?  I see how it may be useful to have it early in the article, but I think the Overview section may be more immediately useful. Schi 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that the distinction between Birding and Birdwatching may be a touch overdone here. I personally use both words interchangeably to describe the action.  It is though probably true that, at least in Canada and the USA, birders are more dedicated / obsessive than birdwatchers and we tend to know who we are.  I'm wondering whether the solution to this "debate" would be place this section lower in the article so that this is not one of the very first things one sees.  After all the article might better start with a paragraph or two concerning our love of birds. As presently written the article is missing the poetry. - Canadian Osprey 15:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) --Canadian Osprey 23:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a very similar distinction in Britain; Bill Oddie's Little Black Bird Book (1980) goes into it in some detail (and a lot of humour!). The Dunne citation (above) could almost be taken from BOLBBB. - MPF 18:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Snetsinger dethroned
Note that according to [Link Removed] website listings Phoebe Snetsinger's count has recently been surpassed by two birders. --Anshelm &#39;77 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC) - link was black-listed... ---J.S (t|c) 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert to seeding of Suggested Reading section
I added/seeded (had intended to add more books) a "Further Reading" section, and it was unilaterally reverted out by User:Jimfbleak without discussion and with the comment "Reverted edits by Wikiklrsc (talk) to last version by Dmcdevit)". There should have been a discussion or polite note before reverting a well-intentioned addition to the article. This is not usually good practice nor justifiable. Any particular contributor does not own the article. If someone thought it was too trivial or not enough material or just too big a section for this article, they should have said so before hitting the delete key. Thoughts, anyone, including User:Jimfbleak ? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC) ( talk)


 * User:Jimfbleak kindly replied that he felt the book, having limited itself to New York City and its Central Park, was too parochial. That's a reasonable criticism. So we rest on it. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Picture location and Tom Gullick
Isn't the pictured Bay of Liminka tower that of Virkkula, Liminka? This just for the sake of location accuracy. Also, Tom Gullick of the UK (resides in Spain) would probably deserve a mention on the "Famous birders and ornithologists" section, as the current world life list recordholder with 8,663 species as of March 3, 2007. He broke Phoebe Snetsinger's record sometime in 2006. --Anshelm &#39;77 18:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the picture, that is just what the picture uploader said. If you are confident you are right, feel free to change it. I added Tom Gullick to the list though; thanks for the mention. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The history of birding
This section greatly needs a fleshing-out, and preferably without the kind of stomach-turningly spotting-scope weenie slant that characterized the "OMG UR A BIRDWATCHER???" garbage section I was just now forced to execrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.79.237 (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Birding; Appropriate addition to the article?
Hi, I'm a researcher at UC Berkeley and we have released a project that allows people to birdwatch across the internet using robot cameras in the Welder Wildlife Conservatory. This is a novel approach to birdwatching which has been documented by academic papers and secondary sources. Here are relevant sources: Would this be appropriate to add to this article? Should I add it, or leave this to someone not affiliated with the lab? --128.32.192.90 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://ieor.berkeley.edu/~goldberg/pubs/dez-cone-ar-paper.pdf
 * http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bird-nerds


 * Definitely can be included, such ideas should go under the umbrella term "armchair birding" (disparagingly but usually attributed to oneself!). But there is also a scientific detection technique now being talked about, using remote cellphones in the forest and now robot birders looking out for the ivory-bill. Shyamal (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Birdwatching"
The title of this article is "Birdwatching" implying this is the consensus title of this activity. I have made some changes to wording throughout for consistency. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bird is a noun not a verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.208 (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out below, kart and yacht are also nouns, which doesn't mean karting and yachting are not perfectly valid terms for their respective pursuits. Decades of usage trumps any pedantic grammatical quibble. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More birdwatching sites
Not sure whether the present selection of external links is representative. I'd like to add a few: Birdwatching at http://www.birdwatching.com/ and Birdwatch at http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/ and BirdWatchIreland http://www.birdwatchireland.ie/ Ornithologician (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to WP:EL links should have substantial information on the subject of the page- in this case about "birdwatching", most of the links for birdwatchers that are on the list are close to the borderline and may be removed at anytime by editors going by the book (of WP rules) - links to local birding groups do not add knowledge about the subject of "birdwatching" but are for birdwatchers. There are probably hundreds of links for numerous countries if birdwatching related web-pages are to be listed. Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, ok, I see your point, but then most of the other external links should also get deleted - wouldn't you agree? Ornithologician (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Move
I would suggest that this page be moved to "Birding". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluma (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not very helpful as by moving it to Birdwatching it is different to all the other pages. See 2011 in birding and ornithology. And consequently means I cannot enter 2010 details! Jowaninpensans (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a quick check through a few online dictionaries: some did not have birding and others said "see birdwatching". I think birding is a slang term used principally amongst birdwatchers. --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 08:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. The two terms are not interchangeable, and this is covered in the wiki article. Natureguy1980 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Two terms - different meanings. It is NOT a slang term any more than "birdwatching" is, although it's a term used pricipally by Birders, not "Birdwatchers". This article really should be renamed "Birding" Has there ever been an official consensus poll on this? BeadleB (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The "proper" use of birding/birdwatching is subjective at best. Even within the birding community, there is longstanding disagreement about whether these are synonymous terms, mutually exclusive, or as to what is described by each. Moreover, this is an article for a general audience, not a specific subset of everyone who observes birds. There is no consensus in the sources as to the universal meaning of these terms, so I don';t think we should make decisions based on our own subjective views. I personally tend to think of birdwatching as the general pursuit, whereas birding is a group-specific term used to describe or identify a subset of those involved in that pursuit. Regardless, I think it is hasty and ill-supported to claim that birding is a more general and encompassing term than birdwatching, regardless of the value judgement one imparts on them. I think we already cover the use of birding as an alternate term within the article sufficiently. I do not support a move.Jbower47 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The word **Bird** is a noun not a verb. Only morons call it birding! Robbie1994 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case Shakespeare was a moron; the following (from Merry Wives of Windsor) is quoted in A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe by Peterson, Mountfort and Hollom: "She laments, sir...her husband goes this morning a-birding" (though he was probably referring to falconry). More importantly, thousands of birders call their hobby birding (in preference to birdwatching), so any supposed grammatical objections are pretty much rendered obsolete by actual usage. No-one talks about "yacht sailing" or "kart driving". Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Subjective terminology claims need to be backed up
The ongoing dilemma of what is a birder, what is a birdwatcher, etc, needs to stop being treated as statements of indisputable fact. These terms are inherently subjective, and no consensus exists in general, or even in the birding/birdwatching community, as to the "correct" term. It's easier to get bird enthusiasts to agree on an empid identification than to agree on the contentious value judgments and connotations of the two terms. The second paragraph of the "Birding, birdwatching, and twitching" section makes a lot of claims, without reference. A reference from 1969 is used in subsequent paragraphs to support a large block of copied/paraphrased text. Either we need to tone down the language to be more NPOV on the issue and reflect that this is not a universally agreed upon distinction, or we need to find some good sources to reference that text. Personally, I favor the former, as an excersize in the latter (unless one is cherry-picking in violation of Due Weight), would procure disparate opinions. I think the most neutral stance is simply to reocgnize that peopel attach different meanings to these terms, and to stop advocating for one subjective value judgement over another.Jbower47 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that this needs to be NPOV-ed. Shyamal (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Birding magazine quote should be laid out as a block quote rather than looking like body text of the article. I believe it is ok to have NPOV when quoted from a reliable secondary source. I don't think much has changed in the terminology since 1969. Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 09:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree re: block quote, and I have absolutely no issue with the source or text...just that the balance of opinion is not represented. i.e. it's not a problem with the quote, it's a problem with lack of information from the opposite perspective. And I don't believe this to be a due weight issue. This is a longtime debate with adherents in both camps, not just an opposition fringe. In general, though, we need to one down some of the subjective statements being put forward as fact or "majority" opinions.204.65.34.104 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (of course, I meant POV above). I'm not sure what these "camps" are. Maybe you're taking the Birding article quote a little too seriously. Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 08:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictures
Is there a particular reason that there are two pictures each from Florida and Finland? --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 05:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)