From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Birds (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture location and Tom Gullick[edit]

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 '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[edit]

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 (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Birding; Appropriate addition to the article?[edit]

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? -- (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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)


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)

More birdwatching sites[edit]

Not sure whether the present selection of external links is representative. I'd like to add a few: Birdwatching at and Birdwatch at and BirdWatchIreland 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)


I would suggest that this page be moved to "Birding".

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Subjective terminology claims need to be backed up[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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 (talkcontribs) 08:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)