Talk:Phoebe Snetsinger

Improvement

Doing a simple google search of Phoebe Snetsinger comes up with some good sources to references, which could easily improve this article. Such as: [1] [2] If someone is willing to check these out. Bossplw (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The first article is quite useful. The second one is presently a dead link. Ah, I see, another editor found the title, but still uses the same dead link. Here is the new link to the review of a book about her, Graham Jr., Frank (May–June 2009). "The Endless Race: Review of 'Life List: A Woman's Quest for the World's Most Amazing Birds'". Audubon Magazine. Retrieved 18 March 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) --Prairieplant (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Some new sentences added from Frank Thomas Jr article, and many sentences cited to the obituary in the New York Times. Does anyone have either her autobiography or the biography by Olivia Gentile? Her story seems rather dramatic. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't her mother have been Naomi Geddles, unless she was born out of wedlock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4B:3:2B10:50BF:AAF0:25E6:592D (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Life-list

Note that her life list has recently been surpassed by Tom Gullick of the UK. --Anshelm '77 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this her final count was 8,674. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have this source; it is a dead link now. Can you find it again and work it into the article Anshelm '77? --Prairieplant (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism due to Google Doodle

Phoebe Snetsinger became the focus of Google Doodle on June 9, 2016. There have been multiple vandalisms related. Someone should protect it for 24 hours. --Ra4king (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• This user agrees with the above. Specifically, the circumstances regarding her death need to be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.87.236 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. I just edited a comment out of the line regarding her death, but the line does not read correctly right now. Someone needs to address it ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.139.176 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Can IP addresses be blocked? Facts are being altered willy nilly, statements changed to the source no longer backs them up. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Musicanimal for the temporary block due to vandalism. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits of this date

I did not place, but left in place, the article tag calling for improved sourcing.

My edits were aimed at making the article more standardly encyclopedic, like most biography articles. In doing so, I:

• Moved critical content from lede into main body (e.g., DOB and of death);
• Noted occasions in lede and main body where facts and quotes needed attribution; one was the unsourced ABA quote about her memoir; another specific one is the total number (>8000), which appears in the lead, but is mentioned no where in the body, so it is unverifiable (without independent research, which should not be required);
• Created "Personal life" section for material on marriage, children—therefore moving some minor biographical material (children, poetry hobby) to this section.
• Separated her published work, from the works about her, by others (creating a new sections for both, "Published works" and "Further reading" (The "Sources" section was eliminated, because the three "Further reading" entries are nowhere cited.)
• Moved the Leo Burnett relationship to the lead, because this is both of general interest, and because the relationship and inheritance enabled the pursuit for which she is known.

In addition, various other small copy edits were done.

That is all, reply here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am re-adding two sources and one sentence, added by IP editors, but removed by a blanket reversion (that to this extent, threw some baby out with bath water). These can be removed for good cause—though I have checked the sources, and they are good quality, and the content for which they are cited appears in the sources (i.e., they have been verified). But IP editor content should not be removed just because it is from an IP (esp. not, if content is well sourced). Many good academic and other editors are IP editors, and many of us registered editors at time edit from IPs. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As the aim is to be encyclopedic, I would suggest we look for further detail, and further sourcing. E.g., unless this is a first occasion of male pregnancy, mention of the one doing most of the gestational work (mother) would be helpful. Clarifying the sources of various paragraphs whose only citations are at end, would also be helpful, given the longstanding article source tag. (It may be that the article tag can be removed, if all the content truly comes from the limited sources appearing inline in the text.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272 No thanks for changing text while I was editing. References are in place for items you marked as citation needed. Perhaps you could read before you revert, or read now, and place the sources next to the sourced statements instead of your citation needed remarks. I checked sources as well. Her life number of bird species seen is in the American Scientist ref and the New York Times obituary, if you have trouble seeing them. Sarcasm and implied insults are not appreciated at this moment. Now I leave this article now, will read it again on some calmer day. Good luck. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You mention something about Romanian origins—I have added nothing of the sort, and find nothing of the sort in my edits/product. You have removed sectioning, which is standard to Wikipedia (without explanation or justification), and you have returned personal detail-laden lead content, deleting edits that shorten it, and add material from the main body that is more generally of interest (again without explanation or justification).

There is no citation given for the ABA quote. Otherwise, all I have asked is—delete the individual calls for by making clear where the content came from (ADD THE NYT CITATION TO THAT FACT SENTENCE), and stop deleting everything I did in two hours of work, because you have an issue with a tag.

 Done I went ahead and added the 8400 to the main body, with two sources, changed the 8398 to 8400 (because this is the number appearing in those sources brought to my attention by Prarieplant), and removed the tag from the lede. Note, the removal of the tag for "passion and drive" is  Not done. Although I have looked hard, I find no one describing the book in these terms (and there are many reviews). The lede needs to summarize the article, and the article needs to summarize published descriptions. This lede book description needs to be from a source, not a WP editor's opinion. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise, there is no sarcasm (are you mistaking the pregnancy humour for sarcasm?), or implied insults. Just frustration that you are repeatedly change immense amounts of work, without explanation. And it is clear who arrived first, and who then began reverting large swaths, while the other was writing Talk pages to explain edits. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I see on your page you are proud to challenge others, so I hope you are as at home when others challenge you. Yes, your joke fell flat. You can see above that I thanked the editor who put the lock on the page, which is needed for most articles where the subject of the article is also the subject of a Google doodle, as the greater attention to the article includes vandalism to the article. Your action to revert what I did instead of starting from where I brought the article was that you added errors back in. You claim you did not add Class Rumanian, but you did when you reverted. It was one of those IP user bad edits that you did not notice. I chose the last good version before the article was limited to certain editors. Then I proceeded through the edits one by one after that point for anything of value & cited to add back in to the article. I thought that was obvious from my post above on this talk page and my explanations, but it was not obvious. I hope you understand it now. Today I added some research, and realize there must be a citation somewhere, where the birding community recognized her as having listed the most species. There is much written about her. I find secondary references to that, which I have added, but not yet the first or original recognition. Who does it, American Birding group, or Guinness or who? It is an international recognition, so perhaps not the American group. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

source for her date of birth

Jokestress added the date of birth on July 16, 2006, having found it in Snetsinger's Social Security Death Index (SSDI) record. I am not sure how to use the SSDI in a citation on Wikipedia. I usually find those via Ancestry for members of my own family and do not use Ancestry located data in Wikipedia articles as one must be a member to use Ancestry. There may be other ways to reach the SSDI records. I consider SSDI to be a reliable source of information, that is not the issue. I see that others copy what is here in Wikipedia. If anyone has experience with this, please do help, to get rid of the citation needed after Phoebe Snetsinger's date of birth. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)