Past Issues with Article:

AFD: Not yet.
Categories:
Cleanup: Dec2005
NPOV: 12dec2005-13jan2006
Templates: 01jan2005

When a topic or thread has been successfully resolved, would the thread-starter please remove the thread? Thanks! Rorybowman

Talk Archives and Subpages

Archive 1

Current Talk

Think about re-wording this and subsequent sentences: "In Tanzania it is estimated that safari hunter spends 50-100 times that of the average eco-tourist and at a lower environmental impact." While this may be true, is it necessary; does it create bias?--Modernhiawatha 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Carryover for 2006

crisw, if you are still around, do you have some suggested wording? If not, I'd like to work on this and yank the NPOV tag by the end of January, 2006. Rorybowman 05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the cleanup and POV flags. Rorybowman 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still around, and will think about wording. 68.6.219.76 04:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)crisw[reply]

Game shooting

This article seems to focus heavily on hunting ground animals. Game shooting of so-called "game birds", especially of grouse and pheasant, is a major, historic sport (and industry) in the UK at least. Should this be included here? --TheGrappler 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From a hunter

Just my two cents as a hunter but I would declare the following

People come to wikipedia to learn, why not allow them to learn about the subject. Approaching from this point of view the term "varmit" is perfectly valid if what a varmit consits of is given respectable explanation.

Pro-hunting? Could it possibly be that hunting is so vigorously fought and degraded by those who are opposed to it, that anything that is not strictly anti-hunting seem pro-hunting?

Hunting has a clear history of lines of succession as far as the sport goes. Over the last couple centuries Americans replaced the English as the predominant sport hunters of the world. As such where sport hunting is discussed American hunting should take at least a small amount of presidence. (SP?)

Any comment about the suggested use of field ordinance or full automatic firearms is a demonstration in idiocy. Any community has its unfortunante population of morons, and yes there are some hunters who take full autos into the field. Such people are the reasons Game Wardens get paid. Not to mention that from a rational point of view, even with a caliber as small as a 9mm use of a fully automatic firearm is expensive. Few people could afford the firearm, afford the tax stamp, afford the cost to sight the rifle, and take it into the field. Such comments seem to be the work of a troll.

Bloodsports template.

Template:Bloodsports

The pseudonymous User:SirIsaacBrock has placed hunting into the category "blood sports," which seems reasonable, but also inserted a graphic template, which seems less so. While I have no objection to pictures of dead animals, even graphic ones, this seemed a bit over-the-top from an NPOV standpoint. Comments, please? Rorybowman 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hunting was already in the Category:Bloodsports for sometime. Nothing new here. You think the template is over the top ? Why ? SirIsaacBrock 00:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the graphic design itself, which uses a bold color and overwhelms other graphic elements on the page. Visually it seems designed to be disruptive (especially given the default Wikipedia blue hyperlinks) and the broader rhetorical point of the term "blood sport" is better incorporated by placing references in the text above. I like to think I would have a similar objection (for NPOV) if it were a screaming-lime "Outdoor Activities" banner which went the entire width of the page. There are a variety of such loaded words in this article, including "harvest," but it seems to me that they should stay, if they are appropriate in context (which is why for NPOV I put "blood sport" in the appropriate section of the article). Does that make sense? A good public-domain picture could accomplish the same illustrative and rhetorical purpose, without being so visually jarring. What do you think? Rorybowman 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, "BloodSport" as in "Blood Red" is why the colour was chosen. I personally have nothing against hunting. It was included in the Category so it was added to the template, nothing more and nothing less. I note that you have started three discussions on the talk on page in one day ! Cordially SirIsaacBrock 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm trying to resolve the NPOV issue here and want to get as much input as possible. "Many hands make light work" and all that. I understand the color association with blood red, but the choice of red itself is a rhetorical point. Since it isn't my business to quibble with a template's design (not subject to NPOV) I won't suggest changes, but I think that less intrusive Wiki categories are a better way to flag articles than more intrusive templates. Templates are usually used as danger flags (at the top of this article) or to show commonality between a series of articles or stubs on a topic (such as sociology, sports, etc). While I generally encourage categories (even marginal ones such as archery or photography by genre here), templates as a rule are designed to be visually disruptive and to distract from article content. Given that this article could attract potentially dozens of templates I would rather "avoid even the beginnings of evil" (to use Thoreau's phrase. Rorybowman 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Subsection?

I am trying to address some of the NPOV concerns with this article and am thinking that perhaps moving all of the economic arguments into a single section would be useful: agricultural claims about crop damage, industry claims about tourism, etcetera. It would obviously be better if those who have economic points to make about hunting (for or against) could do so, since currently they are all mixed up in the geographical sections. I'm trying to work from the top down, teasing things out into separate threads and moving toward more neutral language. If you made an economic point or are familiar with one, please feel free to start an economics subsection and address it there. Thanks! Rorybowman 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I hunt from time to time, and do believe that this article has a pro-hunting bias. The "absurdly inaccurate" phrase and the entire section about whether trophy hunting is justified or not do not seem neutral to me. Maxwahrhaftig 21:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]