Talk:Fox hunting

Subpage:/2006 Rewrite

Banned in Scotland in 2002

The article says for hunting was banned imn the UK in 2004, It was not It was banned in England and Wales in 2004. Scotland in 2002 and not in Northern Ireland. What English centric type is writing this article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1819189.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costaricavacations (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Consensus (Image)

A member of IFAW (User Talk:212.240.148.42) posted a couple of images to the article, one of which showed a mutilated fox. I don't think they're necessary, but I was reverted by MikeHobday. I'm going to remove them again until we have consensus. Should we Keep or Remove? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - I don't think the images serve any encyclopedic purpose -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - I don't really see how it makes the article more encyclopaedic. Owain.davies 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Add - Five "chocoloate box" images of hunts in the countryside paint a one sided image of the activity. The fact that animals are torn apart at the end of the process is a key factor in the debate which is already a key part of the article. The "torn apart" fox image should appear in the section on alleged cruelty. MikeHobday 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I wouldn't disagree that the section on cruelty could feature a good picture of an injured or dead fox in principle, but for me, i would want to be satisfied that in additon to meeting all of WPs picture standards (free use etc.) the picture was genuine (which i am not necessarily assured of with the one given) and was appropriately captioned. As i understand it, the presence of a carcass once the hunt has concluded is fairly rare, so it would have to be a very well sourced photo. That said, i still don't think it's imperative as i think anyone reading the article could probably envisage a dead fox. Owain.davies 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ReplyEqually, they could probably imagine a horse rider in a brightly coloured coat, coat being followed by riders and hounds in the countryside, but there are several photos of that inthe article. Still, I am pleased at your agreement. What level of assurance would you need that a photo was genuine? MikeHobday 09:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - The intent of including the images is obviously to mislead readers into assuming the "tearing apart" is the method of killing, when in reality the fox is already dead by that time. Read the autopsy reports in the Burns Inquiry. In short, death is generally caused by massive trauma within a few seconds as the animal is "crunched" to death, or, in some cases, the neck is broken (the way a rat terrier kills a rat). It appears to depend on the size differential and the positioning of hound and fox. Either way, it's very quick and doesn't involve being "torn apart". Flatterworld 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like the Burns post mortem on the fox subject to hunting by a terrier at the Royal Artillery which was found to have multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head, damage to the right eye, bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck? Or the "fox 4" post mortem: "Profound trauma by repeated dog bite. ... It is not possible to determine the time period from first bite to death from this post mortem material"? One such photo out of more than half a dozen does not seem misleading to me. MikeHobday 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply For those not interested in re-reading all the post mortems, suffice it to say the absence of blood in the lungs meant the fox didn't even live long enough to draw another breath - imo that's pretty quick. A multiplicity of bites doesn't mean they happened sequentially and over a long period of time, or even that they happened BEFORE death. As for the terrier issue, is Mike proposing we now include terrier pest control in the fox hunting article? Why not simply retitle the article "any animal killing another animal, particularly in the UK"? imo you're straying quite far afield. Flatterworld 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply Are you saying that foxes hunted by terriers below ground are not being hunted? MikeHobday 08:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think we're getting to the heart of the matter here. The article is not named 'All kinds of hunting which Mike Hobday finds cruel and which he's campaigning to make illegal', it's called 'Fox hunting'. Further, most of the Wikipedians here would like to see this title limited to scent hunting (whether or not limited to foxes and/or limited to pack hunting) as it's EXTREMELY confusing to encyclopedia readers, who live in all parts of the world, to be dashing about among all the various topics Mike seems to find related in some way. We are an encyclopedia, not a platform for those with various political aspirations. Terriers are NOT foxhounds. Terriers are NOT scenthounds. Terriers are NOT hounds at all. If Mike would like to write an article about terrier pest control, covering rats and foxes, comparing the cruelty of killing traps, Warfarin (and other poisons his government uses), and so forth to terrier work, he's welcome to do so. Just not in this article. In reading through past discussions, it appears Mike's goal is to undo the efforts of previous editors who separated this article into such articles as the one about Legislation. Wikipedia does NOT need this article to become some sort of general dumping ground. Flatterworld 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply Leaving aside the personalities, the article is not called "fox hunting with hounds", it is called "fox hunting". Are you saying that foxes hunted by terriers below ground are not being hunted? MikeHobday 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think it might be worth considering changing the title of the article to "British Fox-hunting" precisely to prevent this kind of confusion. In British sporting usage, "Hunting" is done with hounds. It is not "Shooting" which is completely different. A fox that is chased with hounds is hunted. A Fox that is shot is not hunted, it is shot. (Fox-hunters have historically despised fox-shooters.) Digging out foxes with terriers is Terrierwork.David A. Flory 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply Terriers are intrinsic to fox hunting in Britain and should not be separated from the article. I think the similarities between British and US hunting are sufficient to merit an interesting comparison in the same article. I agree with you that fox shooting should be in a seprate article, whether or not called Vulpicide! MikeHobday 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - As per Talk, I don't think the images serve any encyclopedic purpose --TFoxton 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• As per Owain Davies, above, I suggest that the dead fox photo at [1] be added to the Animal welfare and animal rights section with the caption, "Imagery of dead foxes played a significant role in highlighting accusations of cruelty in fox hunting." My view is that a photo, from an organisation with several professional hunt monitors is likely to be well sourced. MikeHobday (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think their photos are the least likely to be neutral, and monitors have in the past been accused of faking or posing photos (whether true or not). As I said, its not the principle of the photo I object to, and your suggestion of mentioned that it has been used for PR purposes is sensible enough, but I still have major concern over whether such photos are genuine. I think the only way to assure that is to use one which shows the actual kill or the hounds as well as the fox. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure any independent person has accused them of faking photos. Are you suggesting they killed the fox themselves, or that they found a fox nd ripped its guts out? MikeHobday (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting either thing, but they could just have found a fox already eviscerated by any one of a number of carnivorous scavengers, not necessarily anything to do with a hound or any other sort of dog. What I believe or you believe isn't really relevant in either case, as it is all to do with whether it can be proven either way. You can clearly see post mortem rigor in the fox, so its been dead for some time, and anything could have been picking at it. This is why sourcing a suitable image will be of great difficulty, and I don't believe that organisations such as the league are reliable sources, as they have a vested interest in showing shocking pictures, and that is the sort of interest which leads people to embellish a picture in some way. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that accusations of embellishment without reliable sourcing need not be regarded too seriously. Back to the main point, there is no evidence that the specific fox or coyote pictured in the article were hunted, yet they can be included because they have a suitable caption. So does this, even under your unlikely scenario. MikeHobday (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

At the minute, your caption fails WP:NOR. Find some back up for the statement that it had a major effect or even was widely used, or it will have to go again. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wouldn't have added that caption if you'd expressed such a concern. Is the new one better? Trust the reference is OK for you. MikeHobday (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Second vote, on revised placement and wording

Imagery of dead foxes were widely used to highlight accusations of cruelty in fox hunting

Remove. Photographs of dead animals are not suitable for an encyclopedia, unless maybe the entry is "Dead Animals." We can describe the existing controversy without adding gratuitous gore meant to incite more controversy. --AeronM (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - the carcass looks nothing like the kill of a pack of carnivores; it looks like roadkill. --Una Smith (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Help me to judge. What does "the kill of a pack of carnivores" look like? BTW, the caption does not say how the fox was killed, whether by a pack of carnivores or not." MikeHobday (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is no blood on the grass, indicating it wasn't killed where its lying. Without any other convincing evidence, help us to judge why it should be used to illustrate the article especially since, as you say the caption does not say how the fox was killed, so how do you know it was killed during fox hunting or not? Bugguyak (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no such proof. Hence I have accepted that the article should not claim that this fox was killed by hunting, although I personally trust the organisation concerned. This is why I suggested the caption and, on request, inserted a source to demonstrate that the caption was true. MikeHobday (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - inappropriate for this site, keep it on the IFAW site, if people want to see it they can look there. Plus, if the fox was not killed by carnivores, why is it here in the first place? --TFoxton (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As before, there are a large number (too many) "picture postcard" photos of hunts, as if the activity was universally bland, pretty and uncontentious. To delete the single image that suggests a degree of controversy about the activity is to engage in the most blatant POV pushing. There is no reason not to believe that the description of the image, that of a kill by hounds, is accurate, but even if it is not, it is most clearly what the caption says it is, namely an example of the publicity verifiably used in the debate over fox hunting. I guess it depends whether the purpose of the article is to be a nice photo album, or is it is still desired to make it a featured article candidate. MikeHobday (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

MikeHobday, I believe you have voted twice. --AeronM (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find the votes were in separate issues. I have belatedly inserted a header to show this. Hope that's OK. Doesn't affect the apparent vote anyway. MikeHobday (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep Simply because Wikipedia is not censored [2] and you have the option not to see an image on Wikipedia [3] Bugguyak (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I checked out a few other articles with controversial subjects, and "shock photos" were not allowed (see abortion for example). I believe the same principle applies here. --AeronM (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it may be necessary to file an RfC as it does not appear we are going to reach a consensus on this one. In the mean time, per Wikipedia:Image use policy (specifically "Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article.") I am removing the photo. --AeronM (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reinserted pending either consensus or RfC. How is a dead fox shocking? Surely death is natural? MikeHobday (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Mike. Photo stays out until there is a consensus to add, per wiki policy, and as quoted above. --AeronM (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought here, will not reinstate picture if policy is interpreted as you say. MikeHobday (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the image should stay out until it's clear that it should be included. For what it's worth, I don't see any value of adding the image. Do I need to see a dead fox to understand how it applies? Not really. Unless the image is explicitly one that was used in promotion against fox hunting by an organization, it just seems to be a picture of a dead fox that doesn't help. You may seek more opinions at the village pump or WP:3O or try the WP:DR as a last resort. MECU≈talk 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see the image as gory. But the caption could be more descriptive. Which anti-hunting group used it? How did they describe the image? The image source link[4] doesn't have the image and I can't find the original image on the site.--Dodo bird (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to accept that the image was once on the IFAW site - because Wikimedia OTRS has accepted that IFAW uploaded the image[5]. Unfortunately, more information does not seem to be available. Hence note that the claim in the caption is more limited. MikeHobday (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FA application

It is my intention to soon list this article for consideration as a featured article, as I believe it meets the criteria quite well. Does anyone have any comments on the page before I list it. Sadly, it seems that Peer Review is largely ignored now, so I think it will have to go straight to FA.

Comments welcome. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree this is a good idea. Whether article passes or fails (and I incline towards support), this will improve it. MikeHobday (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for a FAC review. Apparently, it has not been nominated for a GA review. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't have time to address everything in the FA review. Can others join in? MikeHobday (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can't get FA, try for Good Article status. It's a vigorous review too. And somewhat easier. I call it the REAL peer review. Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'll try to find time to address some of my concerns too (ducks) I know I'm picky!Ealdgyth | Talk 23:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with the article is that it's kind of choppy and still in need of some organization. It is thorough in places, but then real sparse in others. I think there is a place for a discussion of the traditional roots of hunt attire and a comparison to modern traditions (use of safety helmets, colors and fabrics, etc.) I think it is a worthy project and worth continued effort! Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. The FAC is archived here. --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been closed very early, I believe that we have addressed all the main problems raised, so feel we should go for a quick resubmission. Anyone think differently? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs quite a bit more work. The lead isn't brilliant, and the last sentence is awkward. The flow throughout is choppy, and I'd say it needs a section on the Burns Inquiry. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Share concerns. A second failure in quick succession would be very bad news. Let's get the article right, including a full copyedit, get it stable and then resubmit. Is everything from the review at [6] completed? I'm not at all sure it is. MikeHobday (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And this [7] seems good advice. MikeHobday (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all issues from the review here have been addressed. Eg, the bit about hunts putting down their retiring hounds; that's not a fact, that's a complaint by an anti-hunting group re some hunts. There are foxhound retirement placement groups, just as for greyhounds. What about breeding programs? Do they breed from proven lines or do they breed from proven hounds, hounds that were outstanding in actual hunts? Kinda hard to write a truly first rate encyclopedic article about fox hunting, if none of the editors involved are experienced fox hunters. KWIM? --Una Smith (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably using the same techniques as the editors who wrote History of Lithuania (1219–1295) without being 700 years old? In any event, judge the text, not the author. I have amended the phrasing about hounds being put down to demonstrate that the information came from the hunts, not from anti-hunting groups. MikeHobday (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MikeHobday misunderstands me. I do not judge the author; I note that the text addresses a particular case, not fox hunting hounds in general. Here's an analogy: some houses are disposed of by arson, but arson is not the usual way we dispose of houses. --Una Smith (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I do not understand your concern. The source cited in the article says that UK fox hunts in the MFHA themselves say that they kill about 3,000 foxhounds per year. It is clear that "humane dispatch" is indeed the usual method of disposal of hounds amongst UK foxhunts. MikeHobday (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the sources and this was not clear to me. (See below). --AeronM (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fate of hounds

It is POV to mention only one of several normal fates of hounds after their fox hunting days. It is POV regardless of which fate(s) are mentioned and which are omitted. Let's have some facts, please, from reliable, verified sources. How many hounds are retired per year, and where do they go? Euthanasia (and then? renderer? cremation? burial? fed to other hounds?), breeding programs, retirement homes, others? Lets do some research, get some facts, and leave emotions at the door. --Una Smith (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read the source,[8] have you? For UK fox hunts, it is not disputed by anyone that euthanasia is the predominant fate of foxhounds. The other source cited, [9] is both reliable and neutral. No emotions are in play here, just cold hard facts. MikeHobday (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here in good ole Middleburg, home of the 'most hunts in a contiguous area' (12), many of our retired hounds are adopted by people, both hunt members and non. In California, many of our retired hounds were also adopted out. --AeronM (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the above source. It says the number of hounds removed from packs is essentially equal to the number that enter. Approximately 3000 enter per year. However, the above source also says "there is no record kept of the number of hounds put down each year" and that hounds "are removed from the pack for different reasons" and enumerates some reasons. Not all of those reasons involve humane dispatch and not all humane dispatches are for human convenience. Of the hounds removed from packs each year, how many are given other jobs, retired as pets, killed for (or die from) medical reasons, and killed for convenience? I found section 4 of the source, "How many are re-homed?", very interesting. --Una Smith (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The fell packs, cited as an exception to humane despatch, amount to six hunts, and their hounds are 420 compared to 11,766 for the MFHA. And that figure of 3,000 does not allow for the over 6,000 hounds in other packs. Accepting Fanshawe's estimate of 1 in 4-5 as surplus to requirements each year, that is another 1,400 hounds that go somewhere. The Burns Inquiry summary seems the best conclusion:

6.79 It is a common, but not universal, practice for hounds belonging to the registered packs to be put down after some six or seven years’ hunting, when they are considered to have reached the end of their working lives. The Countryside Alliance estimated that the MFHA packs put down about 3,000 hounds a year in this way.[433] The Countryside Alliance and the MFHA explained to us that this was necessary in most cases because hounds were not domesticated animals; and that it would be unfair to subject them to the more constrained and solitary life of a pet dog.[434] In some cases, however, especially with hounds belonging to the Fell Packs, the hounds retire to live with the families who "walked" them as puppies and who have often continued to look after them during the summer breaks.

6.80 The anti-hunting organisations tend to argue that it is unnecessary to put hounds down in this way. They also argue that hunts breed too many dogs and are too ready to put them down if they are not thought suitable for some reason.[435]

If you want to add more information to the article based on this, do go ahead, but my point is that the 3,000 figure is notable and reliable. MikeHobday (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that number; I dispute the appropriateness of leaving out "the rest of the story" (Blind Men and an Elephant). --Una Smith (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. What verifiable source do you have that there is any more to the story? MikeHobday (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence for the time being for two reasons: 1) I read the references and found that the number (3,000) was suggested but was then lowered allowing for other 'fates,' and 2) the information was from the UK and does not reflect US practices in general. The information did not appear precise enough to be included here. We can do better. --AeronM (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find some verifiable US information? MikeHobday (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would reiterate what Una Smith said above; the fact that the first section of the cited source says "There is no record kept of the number of hounds put down each year," already throws some doubt as to the accuracy of the '3000' number. It goes on to say that "the figure is speculative," and also "During any one year some losses will occur through injuries and ill health." Clearly then, the sentence in the article ("Anti-hunting campaigners also criticise UK hunts who put down around 3,000 hounds after their working life has come to an end, at the age of about eight years.") is not accurate. I have removed it until such time as something better can be contributed. --AeronM (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another hunting source saying it is routine: "Hounds are humanely put down when they cease to have any quality of life." [10]. MikeHobday (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the position. Burns says MFHA hunts put down 3,000 per year. This source [11] are the UK hare hunts saying they put down an additional 900 hounds per year, suggetsing around 4,000 is the right figure. I will reinstate. MikeHobday (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered farmers packs

I recently removed this information about there being unregistered, as well as registered packs from the article, principally because despite extensive searching I can't find a reference, and it is the nature of unregulated entities not to have reliable sources. It has been reinserted, but I am having trouble seeing how this will meet WP:V in the future.

Their existence is inferred in articles by the master of foxhounds association of the US, as this gives the benefits of being a member, but never explicitly mentions it.

I suggest, that unless anyone has a good idea about where to find a source that isn't a blog or forum, we are going to have to remove the information.

All suggestion welcome, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted it because, if true, it is highly relevant. Indeed, the question as to whether fox hunting takes place in America outside of registered packs (i.e. as in the UK) seems a key issue for an article which we are hoping to move to featured article status. Were it not for this latter point, I would be happy to see the sentence deleted. MikeHobday (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the value of the point it makes, but if it can't meet WP:V it can't stay. I'll happily give it a couple of weeks for a source to be found (and i'll look too), but if one can't be found, i think it will have to go. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording and added a ref. --AeronM (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Burns Inquiry issues

I tend to agree with the suggestion, made somewhere recently, that the Burns Inquiry should have a separate section. I probably think we need to revisit the order of sections of the article at the moment, not least because we are currently referencing the inquiry before it has been explained, which does not make sense. Finally, in the light of this source, [12], referencing a Guardian article which I cannot find (perhaps Guardian archives do not go back to 2000?), I think that the references to the status of individual Burns Inquiry memebrs is overblown to the point of POV. MikeHobday (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your own organisation's viewpoint is hardly a reliable source. You have placed much emphasis on the Burns Inquiry as a correct and verifiable source, so the opinion of its chairman and other leading member, neither with a particular political bias (hence their choice for the panel) seems highly relevant. It is no secret that official government policy and these members of the inquiry board (both very senior government advisors), along with the lords favoured the 'middle way' option, and were outvoted by the house of commons and subsequent use of the parliament act. There is a lot more I could put in here which would verge on POV (e.g. the first instance of use of the parliament act against the wish of the prime minister), but I have refrained from doing so. I think you need to accept that it was not a clear cut decision by the politicians, but it did in the end go against hunting, with no sign of a change in the near future, and avoid trying to write the history in a rosy light.

I'm not sure the Burns Inquiry warrants its own section in this article, but I would support it having its own article, with a main article or see also tag on the page.

Done, as you can see, at Burns Inquiry. Do have a look and see how you can improve it. MikeHobday (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, there is no problem with using the article as a reference before it is mentioned. The first mention of the inquiry I can see in the in the Current Status#UK section, where it mentions that there was an offical inquiry, chaired by Lord Burns. The #1 Reference is supportive of other facts, so not in conflict IMHO.

Regards OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just on the ad hominem point, the League is not "my" organisation, and I am no longer an employee. If I have cited it as a source, other than in express terms of giving its opinions or discussing its actions, I hope you will review the appropriateness of that.

Back to the main point, I have never thought that political background is the key issue with respect to a politician's views of hunting as an animal welfare issue, and hence I disagree with your suggestion that individual's political background is the key indicator of potential bias. Lord Soulsby, of course, is a Conservative politician[13] but that is less relevant than the concerns raised at [14]. My point is that it is hardly greatly significant, under the circumstances, that Lord Soulsby supported hunting. Even were it so, to solely refer to him as an eminent vet (which he certainly is) and not as someone who had undertaken work for the hunting movement (or in your terms, as a Conservative politician) seems POV. My suggestion is that the Soulsby reference is removed from the article. MikeHobday (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I only say 'your' organisation, as its the first line of your user page "Mike Hobday undertakes work for the League against Cruel Sport", so not really an assumption as much as you telling the world. In either case I take your point about political views not being the be all of voting patterns (Ann Widecombe being a good example), but it is a reasonably good predictor, as is social class (and the two being fairly intertwined). I am happy to use a wording which mentions the views of several of the panel, with the emphasis on Lord Burns, but i'm not convinced that mentioning that members of the independent panel were not in favour of a ban is POV. I would rather keep it in, with an opposing sentence of those panel members who came out in favour of an outright ban. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I reveal potential COI interests (in this case consultancy) should not detract from the fact that my views are my own, and should be criticised as such. On Burns/Soulsby, my understanding is that no other member has commented, so my preferences would be (1) list Burns only and (2) list bioth but with teh Guardian caveat to Soulsby. MikeHobday (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy with option 2, although it definitely needs the primary source. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitals

A minor point, hence merely Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Institutions. MikeHobday (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it that means you agree? "HM Government", but "the government said..." OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought MOS backed me up, but let's leave it till the experts at FA review see it. MikeHobday (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the wikilinking.  : - ) OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

how did foxes surve during the big fox hunting era if any one has any info i have a school prject any help would be much appreshated. many fanks from confused nerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.134.212 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy sections

There are way too many sections describing the controversies.... More space is dedicated to the controversy here than on the abortion page! We need to consolidate; explain the controversy and keep it simple. It starts to read like an animal rights blog by the end. --AeronM (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so its up to us to be WP:Bold and edit. Don't expect wikipedia to give equal time to both sides of any controversy. This 'encyclopedia' is rampant with bias. Many of the contributing editors to this and other hunting related articles are self confessed animal rightists that blatantly change every article they edit to reflect their single view point. What we need to do is monitor their contributions for NPOV and fix their edits when we see this kind of activity. Bugguyak (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the controversy section has too many sections. Having rewritten a large amount of it, I have been very careful to stick to NPOV and citeable facts. The recent FA review had no-one mention NPOV as a problem, and they tend to be quite pedantic!

The simple fact is that there is a lot of controversy around fox hunting, with many different arguments employed. It would detrimental to simply remove the arguments for the sake of brevity.

I absolutely agree that we need to stop there being an animal rights/welfare bias on the page, and if you don't like it now, you should look at the version 6 months ago! That said, on a rough tally of regular editors (of the last 6 months), I would stick my neck out and say that more of us are pro than anti. That said, feel free to edit, but I would counsel against removing whole arguments, especially where they are sourced and cited. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"more of us are pro than anti"? 1. [15]. 2. How about debating content, not personalities? MikeHobday (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating personalities, just pointing out that it is not necessarily an "animal rights blog" as had been asserted. The inference in the above posts was the page was solely edited by those with an animal rights view, and i'm stating an opinion that I generally see more pro sentiment than anti. I think that NPOV is actually pretty good on this page. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What does personality have to do with it? You may be the nicest person or a big jerk. I don't know, but I do know that there are anti-hunting advocates and pro-hunt advocates. We know who we are. What I am saying is that some of us have an obvious agenda and it shows in our edits and that is rank POV.Bugguyak (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to consolidate the controversy sections into one section, giving a brief (two or three sentence) description of each point. I've helped edit numerous controversial topics, and this seems to be the best solution. Being pro or anti doesn't really matter, as long as it's NPOV.... that said, just because something is cited and verifiable does not mean it belongs in the article. We can always add "For more information" links for people who want to learn more about the controversy. As it stands now, roughly half of this article is devoted to the controversies. I'd like to see it reduced to about 5 - 10% of the article. IF absolutely necessary, we can split off a "Fox hunting controversy" page (like what was done with Water Fluoridation). --AeronM (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Split the article, however remove all but the redirect and the briefest of descriptions of the entire point. Bugguyak (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, if we split off an article, it could be subject to an RfD under Wikipedia:Content forking. Also, the article that we split off will still have to be NPOV even while it describes the controversies. --AeronM (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I disagree that the article should be split. Fox hunting is, regardless of your opinion or position, inherently linked to controversy. It makes more sense, and follows a logical order to be in a single article. Also, what I have seen on this and other articles, is that there is a perverse side effect to removing detailed argument, which is that people constantly reinsert it, often in a poorly written or uncited way. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying that we should keep the six miles of controversy sections to avoid having poorly-written contributions added? This is not a logical argument. Also, I would venture that the abortion page was one of the most controversial on wikipedia. If they can streamline, so can we. --AeronM (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Owain's various arguments that you did not comment on. With regard to his one argument that you did refer to, I note that the abortion article has a considerable section called 'social issues' which is effectively the controversy section part B under a different name. If you had a constructive idea about how to split this article along similar lines, I'd be interested to read it, though I'm unconvinced as yet. MikeHobday (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed "long" to "recently" in the first line. Ten years of controversy is not LONG considering the 500 years Fox-Hunting has existed. HowesR1 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When Foxes grow up

Owain has added that young foxes "are full size by autumn season as they are born in spring" using what looks like a pro-hunt source. I wonder if this is insufficiently nuanced? The academic source already quoted, [16] says "Mother and pups remain together until the autumn after the birth. Sexual maturity is reached by 10 months." In either case, I am not sure that this implies the degree of maturity that "full size" implies. Especially as autumn hunting sometimes starts in August, well before the Autumn. If the implication is that the foxes are no longer dependent cubs but are fully independent in their own right, that may not be true. If the claim is merely one about body length, I am not sure this is relevant. MikeHobday (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike there does not appear to be anything wrong with the statement. Even the academic source you provide does not contradict it. Merely because it "looks like a pro-hunt" source does not invalidate its accuracy. The article is about fox hunting, there is nothing wrong with having a source that actually might be pertinent for a change. The section is about hunting immature fox, not about hunting small fox, since as you state maturity does not imply full size in that a young fox can appear full sized. Bugguyak (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I deliberately added this to avoid the inherent POV in statements regarding killing young animals. People almost always react more strongly to statements regarding killing of young animals (kittens, puppies etc.), so I felt it was a relevant point to add. A lot of anti hunt like to use the fact that this is 'young' to try and gain support, but the truth is, by the time they are hunted, they are usually independent, or very close to it. The source may be inherently pro, but most actual books on the subject are. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my point. The academic source implies to me more "close to it" than "independent." The article implies the opposite. Had I felt the statement wrong, I would have reverted. Because I think the nuance is wrong, I am discussing here. MikeHobday (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What nuance is wrong here? I don't see where either article implies that helpless or dependent young are hunted for sport. You are the only one making that implication.Bugguyak (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The University article cited above suggests that foxes hunted during at leats the first part of autumn/cub hunting are neither sexually mature nor sufficiently independent to live apart from their family group. By saying that such foxes are full grown, the article currntly implies the opposite. Perhaps easier if I edit the article. Change it again if you think I'm getting it wrong. MikeHobday (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To be accurate one would have to give all the information about sexual maturity the university article cites: "pups leave the den 4 or 5 weeks after birth and are fully weaned by 8 to 10 weeks. Mother and pups remain together until the autumn after the birth. Sexual maturity is reached by 10 months." POV interpretations of implied nuances have no place in the article. Why don't you just come out and say what you think the passage implies? Bugguyak (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Genuinely, I thought I had. The article implied foxes were fully mature, the academic source implies they are not. How can I clarify my words better? MikeHobday (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratcatcher

I don't have a source for this - but I thought 'ratcatcher' was a tweed jacket and cloth cap and that the black coat is called 'black coat'. In the UK anyway. [17]Fainites ^barley 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected that ratcatcher mention, but I think the whole attire section needs a rewrite. Tangledweb (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Crupper

Does horse tack used in fox hunting ever include a crupper? Please respond on Talk:Crupper. --Una Smith (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever? Sure, but it is very uncommon and not worth mentioning. You might see one on a fat kid's pony that otherwise has trouble with saddle stability, but rarely on horses. Tangledweb (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A crupper keeps the saddle from sliding forward just as a breast collar keeps it from sliding backwards. In the 1800s horses tend to be bred downhill (hind legs longer than the front or larger butt muscles) and cruppers were more common. Today's horses tend to be level or uphill (longer legs in front - requiring a breast collar on some).HowesR1 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Attire

The attire section seems to be a bit thin, poorly sourced and innaccurate in places or at least ignoring regional differences. I'll stay out of the controversial sections, but is anybody very attached to attire and likely to be offended if I rewrite it? Tangledweb (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who's offended might get a life, but my suggestion would be that you try to add sources for the changes you make. If the article is nominated for featured article status in the future, there's the danger that someone might ask for evidence. In the meantime, go for it! MikeHobday (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

conservation

Just finished the book, 'memoirs of a foxhunting man' and was interested to read that traditional hunting encourages farmers to looks after their hedges (and avoid using barbed wires) which helps protect butterflies and other hedge dwelling animals. Obviously, this is not an adequate source, however, i wonder whether the conservation benefits of fox hunting might be added to this article? (If we get some good sources together) (Captain hoek (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

NPOV discussions Oct 08

Following copied from user talk page of Captainclegg:

For the anti-hunting support and RSPCA ban, the cites don't support the statement, and so they can't stay.

For the movement through parliament, there is no citation for 'overwhelming public support', and i'm not entirely sure that the vote numbers are strictly relevant? If you could justify why you think they're relevant?

Thanks OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref Your comment on my talk page - i happen to think that this is a very balanced article, which has been extensively worked on by supporters, antis and neutrals. One of the regular contributors and watchers is a strongly anti Labour politician, Mike Hobday, and he tends to keep anti views well represented. It is especially important on pages like this to keep an NPOV, and this article was very close to featured article status, but we just need a few more technical citations and checks around hunt procedures. Always happy to add new information, but we must make sure it's correct and cited. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The RSPCA ban is a matter of fact and I wish to put that back in. The overwhelming support is borne out in nearly every opinion poll done before and after (see Advertising Standard Authority ruling). I assume you believe in democracy, so the Free Vote in the House and the huge majority is symptomatic of a representative sample of the population. That is the democracy we have where the MP's are our representatives. If you don't approve of that then that should be in a different article. I am VERY concerned at the general tenure of this article and it reads like a strong support for hunting and no counter-balance, which is what I am trying to inject. Captainclegg (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Although this discussion should really be on the article talk page, I agree with Captainclegg about the RSPCA ban. Perhaps the wording needs to be subtly altered, however I don't agree with removing the sentence. From my reading of the BBC article cited, it appears to be essentially correct. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be fact, but the citation you provided doesn't prove it - it says they were considering it - in 2000. You need a more recent citation than that which actually says they did it. As it happens, i don't believe that the House of Commons is genuine democracy, but that's not really relevant to the argument - and they definately are not representative of the wider population! The important thing is this article (and wikipedia in general) is whether you can support your claims. I am happy to try and work in the vote pattern, as that is cited, but you are making unsupported (and probably unsupportable) claims, which violate the WP policy, which you can find at WP:CITE. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion below:

Thank you. We now seem to be getting to the nub of the matter. OwainDavies is now dictating how old citations may be. Is that fair? He does not think that Parliament is representative... well its what we have and have had for a very long time. The vote was Free (no whips) and the huge majority came out against hunting. If you feel that Parliament is not representative of the wider population (supply citation please), I wonder if you would alter your opinion if the matter had been reversed! Captainclegg (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! That's not what I said, and is heading towards personal attack. I said that the citation does not support the statement you've made, which is clearly true. The article you've cited says they are considering - not that they've done it, as the text you wrote said. It's not the age, but the content. If you can find a follow up article from that time which says they did it, then that is perfectly acceptable!

My personal opinion on parliament isn't relevant to the discussion, as i already said, but again the problem lies with the statement about overwhelming public support - surveys have come out both for and against a ban, but there is ample citeable evidence that MPs do not necessarily note in line with public opinion (Iraq war, anyone?) I'm not against adding addtional information (either pro or anti), but it needs to be cited. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, in no way is this approaching a personal attack and I apologise if you took it that way. Its just that I am new to Wikipedia + feel rather strongly about this subject! I just find the ability to override an edit is similar to bullying and not pleasant. I will stand down on this, otherwise I will just get really het up! Can you tell me if I am 'blocked'? I was unaware of that rule. I'm sorry. I just reacted strongly. Captainclegg (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology unreservedly accepted. As for blocking, I couldn't say, as i'm not an admin, but i would suspect not, especially as you are new. I can see you feel strongly about the subject, but as you alluded to earlier, Wikipedia has a reputation for inaccuracy, and the only way we can combat this as editors is to ensure we adhere to the key policies, such as WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The things you've added follow common newcomer mistakes of making statements not precisely supported by the reference you've given, or not supported by references at all. On some articles, that can ride for a time, but on articles as controversial as this one, there is no room for uncited edits. As I said, I think we can work the vote level in if you would like, but we simply can't have some of the statements like 'overwhelming public support', 'strong support' for the anti movement and the RSPCA ban on hunting members without a strong citation - it undermines the encylopaedia's work to make a good reference piece. In WP:V you'll find one of the key pieces to editing - it's not about what is true, but about what can be proven to be true. Hard to grasp at first, especially when you are passionate, but it is fundamental to keeping accuracy.

So, the summary really is, that if you can prove with reliable sources any of the things you've put down, then they could go in, but on an article as controversial as this, proof is key. I hope that helps guide you in editing, and if you're not sure, please feel free to run stuff past me either on the talk page here, or on my own talk page, and i'll happily give an opinion on whether is meets Wikipedia standards, or give suggestions on how to make it meet standards. Regards OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now posted a revised version which hopefully includes the facts you were trying to get across, whilst avoiding the uncited (and possibly uncitable) areas. I found a better reference for the RSPCA action, and have included the size of the vote in the current status. I hope this is acceptable, but of course, feel free to edit it - just please try and stay within WP:V and WP:CITE. Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. A considerable and considered improvement. Captainclegg (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you are pleased with the outcome. The intention is only to try and stick to key editing principles, not to stop the editing taking place, and i know it is difficult when you first start editing on WP, and almost everyone makes exactly the same mistakes! I look forward to seeing more edits from you in the future, and if you need any help with them, please let me know. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Countries involved in fox hunting

There was at least one country listed that should not have been there. New Zealand does not have foxes or anything similar, so there is no way that fox hunting could happen in New Zealand. I followed the reference link and found a table listing teams of hounds (including draghounds) in various countries. Draghunting is not fox hunting. There are no foxes in New Zealand. I have removed this information, but there may be similar issues with other countries. If anyone knows about the fauna of listed countries, please take a minute to think about whether fox hunting is possible and remove the reference if it is not. Counries listed are Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Italy, Russia, and the United States. Aya McCabre (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

New controversy with the wording of law in the UK

Whilst reading on-line, I happened upon this article by Professor Roger Scruton. http://www.huntingmagazine.co.uk/pf_huntingban.htm . He talks about the ambiguity of words used in law, especially the English Language. He argues that "In English usage the verb ‘to hunt’ describes four quite different activities. Used intransitively, as in ‘Sarah hunts’, or ‘John hunts with the Old Berkshire’, it describes what we hunt followers do. We follow packs of hounds as they comb the open countryside in search of a scent. Nothing in the Act can conceivably be understood as forbidding that activity, which is after all a favourite pursuit among members of the League Against Cruel Sports. Hunting, in this sense, involves no intention to kill or even to chase an animal, but only an intention to keep up with a pack of hounds."
Could this article, in quite a prominent Hunting magazine, give reason to add another controversy with the law itself?
p.s. I am new to wikipedia for adding information and whatnot, hoping to help with this presumably new piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.94.80 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a recent High Court decision at [18] which provides an authoratitive view on this issue which should probably replace (my) previous language. I'll do this when I have time, unless someone can do it first. Note, however, that the CPS is considering an appeal [19] MikeHobday (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Second thoughts: more appropriate, and have made amendments, at the Hunting Act article. MikeHobday (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion - Fox Hunting Points of View

Please view this film from an online youth magazine as I would like to submit it as an external link. Thanks Willsmore (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

origin

" Fox hunting originated in the United Kingdom in the 16th century" it is a motif in Gawayne and the Greene Knight. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Gone to ground?

The article assumes the reader is familiar with the term "gone to ground" and uses it three times. There is, however, no hint of what it means. As a reader coming to this article because I've heard of, but am unfamiliar with, fox hunting, it seems a rather baffling term, since it seems to imply the fox does not run along the ground all the time, but may sometimes go into the trees or something, which I don't think a fox is even able to do.

190.74.105.118 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've included an explanation following what appears to be the first use of the term. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Trespass

I have removed "frequently" from the trespass section. The reference cited for this is simply a collection of laws related to hunting on the Hunt Sab website. The reference does not mention how often trespassing might occur, so frequently is clearly not referenced and is POV. I have removed other offences that hunt saboteurs may be guilty of since this section is about trespassing, not hypothetical other offences that these people may have committed. These other possible offenses could be included in other sections. Bob98133 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm usually an advocate for removal of excess adjectives and adverbs of whatever type. Usually said words inject unnecessary POV where none is needed. Absent hard statistics and the ability of sources to meet the strict adherence to WP:V that is usually necessary when dealing with controversial topics, I'd say it's the best approach. It occurs, but we don't have hard numbers, and even if we did, define "frequently." IMHO, that it occurs is all that can be said. I agree with you. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The recent changes to this section have not been supported by the references. Stating that because the hunts take place on private land that hunt sabs always/frequently trespass is nonsense. They have been known to fly helicopters over the hunt and sab the hunt without trespassing; or made excessive noise on public property to scare animals. Stating some reason that a hunt sab web site prints copies of the the legal code is pure speculation. Are we to assume that the Congressional Record publishes text of legislation because people are likely to break the law? What recent editors have been adding might logically follow, and may well be true, but the cited refs don't support the text. Bob98133 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

All I did was copyedit what's there, I have no horse in this race or dog in the fight (in Montana, our "foxhunters" chase coyotes, and the ranchers are glad to see 'em go! LOL!), so I'll just step aside and let you guys sort out the content. But if you want a more-or-less neutral eye to copyedit, you know where to find me. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 02:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I was surprised to see your mass removal of citations here - especially from some very reliable sources, and I think Montanabw's last copyedited version was looking good for neutrality. Firstly, the refs given clearly demonstrate that sabbing involves trespass (without judgement as to criminal or civil) - "Hunt sabotage involves trespass, even when conducted from footpaths or other public rights of way" (Stokes) and also that a law was introduced specifically for this reason. You do raise the point of the use of helicopters, but this is very limited (and I believe was a a single intance of a gyrocopter which is no longer used due to the injuries previously caused after scaring the horses, and the resultant compensation claims) so I think that 'usually' would be ok. I also think that shis may fall under "Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true.". I don't think that either hunters or sabs would disagree that trespass takes place, only as to whether it was civil or criminal. As for the HSA website, i'm sure it used to be a lot more explicit in its reasoning when it was originally cited (hence the specific text claim), so i might look it up in a web archive when I get some time to see if i can find the original. And as for the congressional record - yes, that is exactly why they publish it, as people need to know what it is! Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 05:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor Owen.davies - I do not believe that [20] the Free The Beagles website is a reliable source to claim that "the criminal offence of 'aggravated trespass' was introduced in 1994 specifically to address the problems caused to fox hunts." This is the website produced by advocates or hunt sabs who would of course feel this way, but without a reliable reference, I believe that my removal of this bogus ref was warranted. The info may be true, but a reliable ref is required.

The text " For this reason, the hunt saboteur tactics manual presents detailed information on legal issues affecting this activity, especially the Criminal Justice Act." is OR and POV, unless that website specifically states that this is the reason for inclusion. For the most part, this web site explains the law, but offers no reason for doing so other than information. It is POV and OR to claim a reason for the inclusion of this material without a ref.

Your statement that "The construction of the law means that hunt saboteurs' behavior may result in charges of criminal aggravated trespass" is ridiculous. The law might do this for hunt sabs (as well as mass trespass, raves, and squatters) but the actual construction of the law doesn't mean anything. This is sloppy and discounts other targets of this legislation.

I am not arguing that what you are saying is untrue, just that the refs used, and the interpretation of their content, is POV; while the concutions are OR. There must be some reliable refs to support this. Bob98133 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Gents, my thinking here is to just find better sources; surely Parliament has public records of the legislative history of the act, and maybe the actual statutory language has a preamble or statement of intent that might help. When you two can agree on general principles as to what can be stated and sourced, (you both seem like good editors and generally sensible sorts) let me know if you want another copyedit to make whatever is there cleaner. As I said, I don't have a real stake in this one, but I HAVE been balancing the rodeo articles for several years when there have been periodic invasions from strong POV pushers, so I like to flatter myself into thinking that I can wordsmith pretty well. (That said, I haven't the motivation to research this myself, and 'twould take a braver soul than I to tackle the mess at horse slaughter! ) Montanabw^(talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Current ref#119 - Stokes, Elizabeth (1996). Hunting and Hunt Saboteurs: A Censure Study - presents a fairly well sourced overview of the trespass issue. It does not support the statements currently in the article about trespass, attributed to HSA, but otherwise unreferenced. It clarifies that aggravated trespass can occur from public property. This seems like a far better ref than HSA, which could be used to reference the opinion or POV of that organization, but is not valid for referencing why legislation was enacted or other such.Bob98133 (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And indeed, the Stokes ref is right there relating to trepass being common. As for for why it was enacted, that is clearly shown in the Crown Prosecution Service ref (119) and as they are the public prosecutor, refs don't get much better than that IMHO. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's where I have a problem with your edits claiming that trespass is common, frequent, etc. The word trespass is mentioned 33 times in that reference, but it never once states that trespass is frequent or common. Just because this ref discusses trespass at length does not mean that trespass is common or frequent - coming to that conclusion is OR. In fact, trespass may be common, but the supplied reference does not state this. The ref discusses many of the problems involving the hunt sabs, but I do not believe that the ref states that this is the reason for which the law was enacted, so claiming that is also OR. Another reference to support those claims would be needed to support the statements you claim the Stokes ref makes. If you disagree, can you please cite the specific text in the Stokes refs to support both of your positions? Bob98133 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hunt sabotage involves trespass, even when conducted from footpaths or other public rights of way" (Stokes)

I'd say that is fairly unambiguous. The two things are linked, and is it says, hunt sabotage involves trespass, and as stated in that way, not sometimes, not even frequently, but as the norm. And as for the reason for enactment, did you not read my comment above about the CPS link? Apparently not. To remove doubt it states: "Part V Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) Sections 61-80 conferred additional powers on the police and created new offences in connection with various forms of trespass, including... trespass by hunt saboteurs". The statement is therefore well referenced, unless i'm missing something. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue?

The controversey section seems decidedly one-sided. As the saying goes, "I don't have a dog in this hunt" (sorry , coudln't resist). I can see both sides of the debate, as I value cultural traditions, but also have qualms regarding the nature of the hunt. So, I'm not trying to advocate one side or another. However, the controversy section seems as if it was written almost entirely from a decidedly POV, apologist point of view favoring the hunt. I don't mean to offend. It really does come off as one-sided to the casual observer in terms of how things are framed, the language that is used, and the weight given certain opinions. I know this is an emotional issue for people on either side of the debate, but this current state of affairs is not NPOV. Both sides of the controversey need to be represented, and done so fairly, without rhetorical straw men and slant. Jbower47 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's quite a broad statement for a big section. I think you might need to be a bit more specific about where you feel the bias lies. As you can see above and in the talk archive, there has been extensive crafting of this section to try and maintain NPOV with key arguments from both sides presented and most importantly reliably cited. I have re-read it to check, and i can see the balance view to both arguments presented all the way down. Can you give some specific examples? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This article contains massive bias toward somehow saying that all people who are in favor of human rights laws in Britain to enjoy a tradition in which no animals are harmed, are somehow fat smrmy upper-class grease-balls. I think that user is a sock.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if i read your post right, you think this is POV in favour of the 'anti' side? Whereas the original complaint by Jbower was about a POV slant to the 'pro'. And you think i'm a sock. If you're going to make accusations, it would be nice if you checked a user's history first. On another note, i've reverted the edits you made to the article, as you made some definite statements to replace a cited source, without any alternative, and asked for a citation, immediately next to a reference. This article will always be controversial, so we need to stick to cited information. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservative government reinstatement

To make an NPOV point, is it not the case that David Cameron is thinking about opening up a commons vote on this issue at some point?--Malleus Felonius (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have any links to political sites where this might be tracked? (Or even BBC news, or whatever?) I'm trying to stay NPOV on this article too, but I'm pretty good at crunching the nuances of political stuff if I can access it. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I can track the sources down I'll discuss them here. Watch this space!--Malleus Felonius (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Edit) I've found a source here [21].--Malleus Felonius (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Owain and Bob should look at this, as they are the lead editors. Does Parliament have a site similar to the US Congress "Thomas" site where pending legislation can be looked up and tracked? Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They haven't promised to reinstate it, but the Conservative party [22] and subsequently the coalition government [23][24] have promised a free vote in parliament on repeal of the Hunting Act. The likelihood of success is a little unpredictable, as whilst in general Conservatives are likely to vote for repeal, most Labour MPs will likely vote against (as expected along normal class lines for this issue) leaving the Lib Dem MPs with a controlling say, although most of them voted for a ban the first time round. This is all a little moot at the moment as no legislation has been tabled or announced (it wasn't included in the last Queens speech, although many had expected it). On that basis, i'm not sure if it's worth mentioning yet, but if anyone feels particularly strongly that it should, then thats ok. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If Bob could have a look at this, I'd be much obliged.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Bob98133? Earth to Bob? Or anyone else who has a strong interest here? ;-) Even if it's still in the realm of a campaign promise, probably worth monitoring and maybe keeping at least a note here on the talk page to stay up on the issue. Means keeping an eye on outside news and if moved into the article mainspace, then updating the article a bunch, but not the worst thing to have enough info to stay ahead of the curve and NPOV should a drive-by editor throw in something about it. I've had to do similar tracking on the rodeo articles every time some state or locality passes an ordinance, an anon IP will inevitably dive into the article and place a just plain poor quality edit in that I have to fix...then I get both sides of the issue screaming at me at the same time. Phooey... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)