Talk:Birdwatching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Biology Portal Birdwatching is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit MAJOR taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae For new cat: Category:Natural history of the Americas, replace "Hummingbird" article (by Some collaboration, hopefully) an article: along title LINE of: Hummingbirds--the bird of the Americas

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?

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Ideal Birdwatching Places 3 Birding vs. Birdwatching 4 Snetsinger dethroned 5 YouTube links 6 Revert to seeding of Suggested Reading section

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Snetsinger dethroned

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Revert to seeding of Suggested Reading section

I added/seeded (had intended to add more books) a "Further Reading" section [1], 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)