Talk:Trophy hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Disputes[edit]

I'm opening the discussion page with an explanation why I've put up 2 dispute flags.

This article appears to have been subject to a good number of random drive by edits, with little substance one way or another and no previous discussion. It appears to have a long history of sniping back and forth with both sides putting up biased and/or commercial references, with no attempt at NPOV and with little if any Wikipedia:verifiable fact on either side.

Is it better to make it into a redirect article or move it to Hunting or have it deleted? As it stands it is a minimal article at best and its past edits reflect a swing back and forth between 2 POVs.Trilobitealive 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(It seems fairly clear that this article only contains a tiny fraction of the information on trophy hunting in the hunting article so rather than merging my vote will be to convert it to a redirect.)Trilobitealive 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this article is less biassed than the trophy hunting section of the hunting article which contains (for example) the strange claim that vegetarianism is at the forefront of opposition to trophy hunting. I therefore query the NPOV tag. However, given the brief nature of this article, I would tend to favour a redirect, so that the best of both articles could appear in one place. MikeHobday 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think that political vegetarianism and hunting opposition probally co-evolved and one can see the same players in both theatres.
Back on-topic... Being a newby here I don't know that I could technically accomplish a redirect while merging the article with the section on the other one. Maybe the biases could cancel one another out?Trilobitealive 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As you'll see, I've added what I think are the decent bits of this article to the trophy hunting section of the hunting article. For my part, I'm happy for you to go ahead and redirect. MikeHobday 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, though I'm going to leave the talk page here so it won't get lost on the other page. Trilobitealive 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Is there any objection to merging the article to the section in hunting? The only opposition was shown on the AFD page, but the primary complaint was that the people supporting the redirect were animal activists or childish. There was a statement saying that there is plenty of information available.

The destination section is much more well written (with a style shift but still obtains an NPOV), is slightly larger, and appears to fit well into the article. Unless there's going to be additional sections added to this page in question, the main article will look awkward "See Trophy hunting for more information" without supporting content on the sub-article. --Sigma 7 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not even any reason for you to consider merging this. You're just being incredibly bureaucratic and trying to impress ol' Jimbo Wales himself. 70.92.96.98 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The merge was requested when some editors noticed similarities between this article and the main one, which is a valid reason for requesting a merge (and something that you should have read in the discussion above). A valid reason for cancelling or undoing a merge is a section becoming too large to be contained within a single article.
I also noticed that you were previously blocked for personal attacks. --Sigma 7 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Should not be merged Headphonos 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Debates are not a call to votes - they are a means to generate concensus by finding the best solution. If there are no arguments giving reasonable explainations on why the article should be kept seperate (or there are no serious attempts to address the issues raised), there will still be requests to merge the article - especially if there are only one or two "votes" opposing that position. For more information, see WP:ILIKEIT.
Also, the merge tags are meant to generate discussion before performing the actual merge. Erasing them without explainations only shuts down discussions rather than encouraging them (as you stated that you wanted during the AFD.) --Sigma 7 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The following debate is relevant to the merge discussion, and is taken from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trophy_huntingMikeHobday 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and Expand - This article has plenty of potential for expansion, which is all that is required for an article to exist at wikipedia. There are 7 articles at wikipedia linked to this page. Article was +tagged for merger with hunting January 3, 2007 and #redirected January 5, 2007 : i.e. inappropriate time for participation. Headphonos 12:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is this nominated? --Sigma 7 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    Note I left a message on the nominator's talk page asking him to complete the nomination by giving a reason! SkierRMH 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Stop acting childish and read my entry - two animal rights activists #Redirected the article to hunting, this would be the same as a "Rename" nomination, so it should be voted on, wikipedia does not want slanted opinions, even those of animal activists...got it ?! Headphonos 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment First off, lay off the personal attacks - clearly two people were curious why an "Article for Deletion" started out with "Keep and Expand"! Normally the nominator is giving reasons for "Deleting" here, not keeping. Second, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments that the change to a redirect was inappropriate, ill timed, and biased. Third, this appears to be more of the beginning of a content/merge dispute, which I agree should be nipped in the bud (as per walton monarchist89). SkierRMH 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • When discussing redirects, it's traditional to use the talk-page rather than using an AFD. In any case, the redirect request isn't related to a POV, since an unbiased user would see that the Trophy Hunting section on the Hunting page is much more developed (and has been that way for at least a year when compared to Trophy hunting.) While the trophy hunting page was created first, it seems as the associated contributor to the hunting article was unaware of the subarticle in question and developed the content in the main page instead.
Calling people animal rights activists also undermines claims of POV, especially when they write what appears to be reasonable explainations to their claims or edits. Even though the discussion window was shorter than normal (since Trophy hunting wasn't edited that much), redirects will take place if there's no reasonable expectation of opposition. --Sigma 7 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't redirect - should not be merged with Hunting, as there's enough info already to make this an independent article. More sourcing needed, but I don't even see why this article's being considered for deletion. Walton monarchist89 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect - based on edit histories, the section in Hunting was much more advanced and developed independantly. If the section becomes too large or unwieldly, it will then become suitable for a seperate article. --Sigma 7 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't feel strongly either way. However, if the trophy hunting article is kept, the text should be deleted and replaced with the text at hunting#trophy hunting which is fuller and more neutrally worded. MikeHobday 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


SHOULD NOT BE MERGED[edit]

Trophy hunting is very specialized, many a times even as large a fee as US$60000 is charged as Trophy fees for hunting an exotic animal in exotic lands or on hunting ranches, some of it is used and plouged back into conservation of Endangered species, there is a very important wildlife conservation aspect to trophy hunting, some of the money goes back to countries and very poor communities who then have an incentive to save these and other highly endangered species and their original habitatAtulsnischal 09:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article can be and should be so much bigger and better. It should be expanded and not merged.--Polygamyx4 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

New article: Reindeer hunting in Greenland[edit]

I have finally gone public with my new article:

-- Fyslee/talk 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game. "It also refers to canned hunting." I dont like the wording of this, seems very biased. It would be like saying sexual intercourse is xxxxxx. It also refers to sexualy abusing children.

Some trophy hunting might be canned, but not all canned hunting is trophy hunting.--Polygamyx4 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed. The whole article is POV and seems only to refer to fenced or stocked type trophy hunts, as opposed to fair-chase pursuit of a wild animal. Arthurrh 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

American mutilation of Japanese war dead?[edit]

I'm not sure why this article was referenced in the "See Also" section. I've removed it. Rapier42 (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

American mutilation of Japanese war dead was added because human body parts were taken as trophies such as this one, and see also Jap hunts. I've reinserted it.--Stor stark7 Speak 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It may warrant its own article, such as war crimes or war atrocities or some such thing, but it is certainly not appropriate for an animal hunting article. I really don't think an explaination is needed but for one thing it has nothing to do with hunting animals, it was a criminal activity and I am removing it as such. Bugguyak (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is riddled with factual errors and misleading POV comments. After reading it, not only have I confirmed that it would have no place in an article about hunting animals, but it has no place in an encyclopedia in its current form. Bugguyak (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have a strong opinions on the topic of animal hunting, however that does not grant you any authority to summarily decide what links to other articles belong in the "see also" section of this article on "Trophy hunting". May I by the way humbly remind you that the title does not mention animals? Thus is it a general title/article and applies to any type of trophy hunting, including human. May I by the way humbly point you to the abstract on one of the sources in the article you criticize, a source where the author tries to explain why Americans used the body parts of killed Japanese as trophies and souvenirs?
"This article discusses the use of enemy body parts as war trophies, focusing on the collection of Japanese skulls as trophies by Allied servicemen in the Second World War, and on the treatment of these objects after the war. I argue that such human trophy-taking tends to occur in societies, including modern states, in which two conditions hold: the hunting of animals is an important component of male identity; and the human status of enemies is denied."
Thus to me there are 2 reasons why those reading the article on "Trophy hunting" might be interested in also learning about the topic--Stor stark7 Speak 13:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
While the title of the article does not mention animals, the leading sentance clearly defines trophy hunting as the hunting of ANIMALS and you know it, perhaps you should read the article you are attempting to spoil with this drivel. Stop trolling. Bugguyak (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Initially, I agreed with Stor Stark7, however after reading the article I must agree that they are two completely different things. While the mutilation of war dead was the collection of Trophies, the Japanese were not hunted with the intention of collecting such trophies. This article refers to the act of hunting, not the actual collection of such trophies. Also, Bugguyak don't call people trolls for expressing their opinions, Stor Stark7 explained his views civily and reasonably. Cheers Iciac (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User Bugguyak (talk · contribs) would do well to read Wikipedia:Civility. As to the "see also" section I believe you both have completely miss-understood the issue. Lets start with the basics. When someone types in the frase "trophy hunting" they are directed to this article which is currently exclusively concerned with the hunting of animals. However, there is nothing implicit in the concept of "trophy hunting" that means that it is restricted to the hunting of animals. A very valid subcategory of trophy hunting is "headhunting" where human heads were used as wall or desk decorations as mementos of a suceesfull "hunt". Now, I don't demand that we redirect the title to a disambig page, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation, simply that we in the Wikipedia:See_also section provide a link to headhunting or to the in my opinion more appropriate (for reasons given above) mutilation article, i.e. since it is not only concerned with heads but also other body parts such as teeth, bones and ears and for the reason that animal trophy hunters were more likely to engage in the practice. That is the basic purpose of the see also section, if there is a related topic that for whatever reason is not discussed in the main text, then we should link to it in the "see also" section.--Stor stark7 Speak 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Evaluation/judging of wild game trophies[edit]

There is somekind of judging, evaluation for tusk, horn,... etc.. [1][2] [3] that are hunted, found or something. CIC points? SCI range? Does anyone know anything about that? --Domjanovich (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Found this [4] [5] also. --Domjanovich (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Spy88.[edit]

I have just reverted a combined edit by a new user Spy88 and referred to this talk page in the edit summary rather than summarize it all in a few words. There's a few points.
The changes are POV, or presenting a point-of-view. Wikipedia needs to remain neutral. Both supporting and opposing views can be included, if accompanied by reliable sources.
It reads like an essay, rather than a statement of fact.
You changed the lead significantly. The lead is only intended to be an introduction to the subject, and not all-encompassing.
Some spellings were changed that were already correct. See the appropriate page re UK/US spellings.
Can I suggest, (and this is not a rule but only a suggestion) that you make a small edit at a time, with a few words in the edit summary to show what you are including or deleting and why.
Feel free to discuss anything you want to edit here and any of us will be able to advise.--Dmol (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Statistics section[edit]

The second list in the Statistics section, which claims to list the top five trophy species imported to the US from Africa in 2005-2014, is incorrect. If you go to the source, it's merely listing the percentage of "Big Five" species imported to the US from various African countries. Therefore, the list must include the African Lion, African Elephant, African Leopard, Southern White Rhino, and African Buffalo, since these are, by definition, the "Big Five". The list displayed in the Wiki article is false in its claim that these are the top five trophy species imported to the US from Africa in 2005-2014. As evidenced in the list above it, the actual top five would probably be Impala, Common wildebeest, Greater kudu, Gemsbok, and Springbok, since these are all African animals. But including this corrected list would be redundant. Thus, I argue to remove the second list from the Statistics section altogether. Jescapism (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post and New York Times report how trophy hunting increases populations[edit]

I just restored this content after someone deleted it.

What do other editors think of it?

The Washington Post[1] and New York Times[2] have both published articles on how trophy hunting can, when done properly, lead to increases in the populations of endangered animals.

In 2015, a Texas hunter who had won an auction paid $350,000 for legal permission to kill an endangered black rhinoceros in Namibia. The Washington Post wrote the following about the particular animal that was chosen for this kill: "The bull, Knowlton said, was a problem in his own herd. The animal was too old to breed but so aggressive that it had already killed calves, cows and and other male rhinoceroses in a jealous rage." The money was used to fund conservation efforts. Namibia's Ministry of Environment and Tourism had approved of the kill. The meat was eaten by residents of a nearby village.[1]

In 2017, a hunter paid $35,000 for permission to kill one bongo at a ranch in Texas. The ranch's manager said this was enough money to feed the ranch's approximately 30 remaining bongos for an entire year.[2]

In 2017, wildlife experts said the ranches in Texas had more blackbuck antelope than their native country of India.[2]

71.182.238.157 (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a wildly misleading claim, as both the WAPO and the NYT have also published articles that pretty much say the opposite.[3][4] It should be removed per WP:UNDUE.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with C.J. Griffin (talk). The articles cited to support trophy hunting also report both sides of the argument. It is WP:UNDUE. I have reverted the edit for now as the exclusion of this text has been relatively long standing. Robynthehode (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Trophy hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)