Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon

message: A few preliminary matters before we get started - basically just whether you're happy with me mediating and where we're going to discuss things. My role here will be to help you all to reach agreement on the issue in dispute, not to express opinions or take sides. Hopefully by the end of this mediation you will be able to reach an outcome that is acceptable to all of you. I will try to guide you as to what issues it might be helpful for you to discuss - but this process is about you. If you're unhappy with the way things are going at any time, please let me know.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at any time, either via my talkpage or by email if you prefer (my email address is WJBscribe at gmail dot com). I will treat all email correspondence as strictly confidential. WjBscribe 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preliminary matters

message: Please sign here to confirm you're happy that I mediate this dispute:
*LWF 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator

message: If there are no privacy issues of concern to any of you, this mediation can proceed on this talkpage. However if any of the you would prefer the discussions to take place in private, I can create accounts for you on the private MedComWiki and we can proceed there. Please indicate which option you think is best:
;Happy to have discussions here
*LWF 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of this mediation

message: OK, I've read through the various discussions you pointed me to on the mediation page. By their nature those evolve gradually and people's thoughts are spread over multiple threads and are pretty disorganised. Its often helpful if people can summarise their position on the issue in the question so we can see where everyone's coming from. So I'd like each participant under their name below to describe concisely what their view is on the appropriate name for the subject should and briefly why they hold that opinion. WjBscribe 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify my position, I think it wise to err on the side of being conservative and mainstream regarding usage of the English language in Wikipedia.  I believe that the Oxford English Dictionary is the best global authority on English usage.  I base my evaluation of the meaning of 'hunting weapon' on the authority there.  These other three editors are ignoring that authority and instead doing original research to establish their own meaning of the term 'hunting weapon'.  I see no reason to give more authority to a popular vote of the opinion of four Wikipedia editors when we can instead look to the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary.  SaltyBoatr 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening statements

message: My position is that Hunting weapon is a satisfactory title, as several dictionaries (they have been listed elsewhere) have definitions supporting usage in hunting (ex. used to cause harm or injury) and as we have seen, there is historical precedent for non-combat usage (1880 being the earliest example we have found, although not necessarily the earliest). I do not support a move towards Sporting weapon, as the intent of the article as it currently stands is specifically for weapons used for hunting. Although I would support the creation of a separate article on weapons used for sport.--LWF 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LWF

message: Hunting weapon is the standard terminology most widely used in hunting regulations in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in parts of Europe for printed hunting regulations that are published in English when establishing criteria for arms that legally may be used for hunting purposes.  It has no pejorative usages, and is the most commonly used term for the article topic at hand.  
Hunting firearm is a much less inclusive term, for it omits primitive hunting weapons that are also discussed in the article (e.g., the atlatl, spear, bow & arrow, etc.)  Such primitive weapons are often used during primitive hunting seasons that are regulated to occur separately from hunting seasons that permit more effective weapons.  Also, under present US law, black powder replica arms are specifically not considered legally to be firearms, yet these arms are often used for hunting purposes, and are legally defined as weapons.  For a multitude of reasons, hunting weapon is thus the most factually correct terminology for the topic of the article, as well as being the most commonly used, and is not an offensive term.  
In contrast, sporting weapon is a pejorative term, formerly introduced in the 1930's in German firearms law, and subsequently introduced in US firearms law circa 1968 in an attempt to ban entire classes of arms from ownership by private citizens.  Sporting weapon is also a term that is used in referring to hunting weapons intended for use by an elite class of users at the exclusion of subsistence hunters or "commoners" who hunt not solely for sport but for food.  Killing animals solely for sport, without using their meat as food, is considered offensive by many hunters, especially when practiced by "sportsmen" who use "sporting weapons".  Examples of such hunts include dove hunts, ground hog hunts, and fox hunts where the foxes are killed and not just chased. Sporting weapon is thus an extremely offensive term to many, for a multitude of reasons.  
The title of an article on Wikipedia should be factually correct, inclusive, preferably non-pejorative if a non-pejorative term for a title exists, and should be the term that is most commonly used.  Hunting weapon meets all these criteria.  The other terms proposed to date by Saltyboatr for the title (e.g., hunting implement, hunting tool, hunting firearm, and sporting weapon) all fail to meet one or more of these criteria for the title of the article. Yaf 07:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yaf

message: Considering that Wikipedia is a battlefront in American gun politics, a big challenge for the mediator will be to separate the specific issue out from that bigger political battle.  I oppose using Wikipedia as a political battlefront.
Yes, my perspective of  the specific issue has evolved quite a bit.  Previously, after reading the OED history of usages of the words weapon and hunting, I did not see literal usages of the word 'weapon' outside of war and combat to be global English. Also I saw that hunting refers to the act of the search and chase, not the killing.  Historically, until the late 19th C.  weapon implied combat.  
Lately, I have been convinced that around 1880, the global English usage of the word weapon evolved to include 'sporting'.   (To point out the elephant in the room: This parallels the revisionist history regarding the term 'bear arms', which experienced a similar drift is meaning during this same time frame.)  
I have not yet been convinced of a 'hunting' usage being global English.   Now, I favor renaming the article to Sporting weapon so that Wikipedia can be better aligned with global English.  Perhaps this is a good middle ground compromise.  SaltyBoatr 18:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify my position, I think it wise to err on the side of being conservative and mainstream regarding usage of the English language in Wikipedia.  I believe that the Oxford English Dictionary is the best global authority on English usage.  I base my evaluation of the meaning of 'hunting weapon' on the authority there.  These other three editors are ignoring that authority and instead doing original research to establish their own meaning of the term 'hunting weapon'.  I see no reason to give more authority to a popular vote of the opinion of four Wikipedia editors when we can instead look to the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary.  SaltyBoatr 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SaltyBoatr

message: First, I think the initial objection to hunting weapon was that weapon only applied in the context of warfare, and thus was not correctly used in the context of hunting.  However, the OED 2nd Ed. cites the 1880 Encyclopedia Brittanica usage of weapon in the sentence The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter, establishing that weapon can be used in a sporting context, such as hunting.
Second, the claim was that sporting weapon was thus a superior title for the article.  I object to this because weapon does still include in its definition the act of attack, and you don't attack an inanimate target.  The only sporting use of a weapon therefore would be in the sport of hunting; all other sporting uses of, say, a firearm would not qualify it as a weapon, just like driving your car to work is not use of a weapon, while driving it into a crowd of pedestrians does make it a weapon.  The only possible exception to a non-hunting sporting use of a weapon would be in the context of a duel, and that depends on the issue of dueling qualifying as a sport.  Even given this, I would say that sporting weapon would then be a category, with dueling weapon and hunting weapon being the articles therein.
A final consideration is the usage of hunting weapon versus sporting weapon.  Both terms appear in a variety of sources, from numerous countries, in sources such as media and legal codes.  The term hunting weapon occurs far more frequently in a Google search, which, while not a perfect test, is a common and implicitly allowed step in determining notability of a topic (The Google Test, see here at 13:00).  While that might at first seem to be original research, this is not data but rather meta-data, just like discussions on a talk page as to the reliability of various sources.  Since hunting weapon is the far more common term worldwide (that being the orignal definition of standard English) it should be the title of the article, and sporting weapon should be either a superclass, as mentioned above, or a redirect.  scot 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scot (Fluzwup)

message: Your list seems satisfactory to me insofar as it refers to hunting; trapping and fishing are different sports. Although I will say including animals is debatable, although that usage does agree with some definitions of weapon, as the animals are used to gain an advantage when used in hunting. --LWF 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a clarification here--in some sports the animals are the weapons, as they are used to take down the game.  Many breeds of sighthound, for example, were bred to run down and capture the game, rather than to track, flush, or retrieve it.  scot 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LWF

message: Establishing the scope of the article is extremely important as a necessary first step in defining the content that is appropriate and that the article should cover.  Nonetheless, hunting, trapping, and fishing are three entirely different topics, being treated entirely differently by Fish & Game wardens, Fish & Game laws, and, in general, even by the practitioners. They are fundamentally different activities. This article is about the weapons used for hunting.  It is not about the traps used to trap animals.  It is not about the fishing rods used to catch fish.  Rather it is about the weapons used for hunting.  As for the sub-topics that do make sense for inclusion, based on a long history of hunting that dates back millenia, and the weapons that have been used, such weapons as spears, atlatls,  clubs, swords, falcons and other birds of prey trained for use in falconry, and even dogs, make a good deal of sense for inclusion.  Similarly, a wide range of more modern weapons make a good deal of sense, as well, with significant treatment being necessary for modern firearms and black powder weapons, which together date their usage back about 800 years.  Coverage of all of these hunting weapons is needed to bring the article up to featured article status.  
Trapping, on the other hand, is not generally considered a form of hunting; trapping of animals for live capture, useful for tagging animals for wildlife research purposes, is not used in the same sense generally as hunting for food.  There are a few exceptions, for example a rabbit box, used by small boys in the American south to trap rabbits, that are baited with vegetable leftovers and other tablescrap items, with a trigger mechanism extending into the trap or box that the animal trips while eating the bait; such traps are useful for holding a live rabbit confined until it is possible to perform a quick dispatch with a small .22 LR pistol hunting weapon, with the intent to add the rabbit to the kitchen pot.  Fishing is not considered hunting either.  Nonetheless, there are a few hunting weapons that have multiple uses between both fishing and hunting; for example, harpoons are sometimes used for catching large rough fish (carp, etc.), while also being used for hunting whales and even alligators.  Hunting is generally about taking mammals or birds or reptiles for food (e.g., rabbits, squirrels, quail, pheasants, frogs, alligators, etc.) This article is about the weapons used for hunting these animals. Fishing, on the other hand, is about the taking of fish from either fresh water or salt water.  Trapping is a topic that has overlap with hunting, but is generally considered a different discipline. In general, though, we should not confuse the usage of some common items in multiple disciplines (hunting, trapping, fishing) through confusing the disciplines themselves. Establishing the scope of the article is a very important first step in crafting a good article. Yaf 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yaf

message: Essential in my mind's concept of "hunting" is the pursuit of the game.  Fishing I see as a subset of trapping, and trapping I don't consider hunting as it does not involve any pursuit, and in fact the trapper doesn't even need to be present when the game is taken (this applies to fishing, as well, with rod holders and trotlines).  While this is admittedly a blurry and highly subjective line (is use of a tree stand hunting by that definition, and what about fish finding sonars?) hunting, fishing, and trapping are legally regulated under different sets of laws, and I think these reflect the practical usage of the terms.  Other than those exceptions, the list looks good to me--I had forgotten about clubs, but they were commonly used to hunt seals a century ago.  Knives I might combine with spears, since a spear is for all practical purposes a knife on a stick--and in fact some survival knives are made to be bound to sticks for just that reason.  scot 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thought--since there is a category of "non lethal weapons" or "less lethal weapons", that might be worth a subsection here as well; animals are often hunted and captured alive for various purposes, such as for relocation or research.  scot 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reguarding the use of the word "hunt"; the term Hunt saboteur is defined by the Oxford University Press as "a person who attempts to disrupt a hunt", and the Hunt Saboteurs Association is dedicated to "actively oppose blood sports".  The usage of "hunt" in "hunting weapon" is exactly the same as in "hunt saboteur".  scot 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scot (Fluzwup)

message: OK, let's try this from the other direction.  What do guns, bows, spears, atlatl darts, and the like all have in common?
*bow n 2 a weapon for shooting arrows, made of curved wood joined at both ends by a taut string.
*spear noun 1 a weapon with a pointed metal tip and a long shaft, used for thrusting or throwing.
*gun noun 1 a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets or shells are propelled by explosive force.
*dart noun 1 a small pointed missile thrown or fired as a weapon.
Again, from the COED.  Are those literal, figurative, or transferred uses of "weapon"?  And if they're suitable for use in a dictionary, published by the Oxford University Press, and popular enough that Oxford uses it as their default online dictionary, why isn't it suitable for use in Wikipedia?  scot 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those four examples can be used combatively, and as such would be 'weapons' per global English.  Yet when used for hunting, that would be the transferred usage of the word.  Like for instance, Tristan, The land of Moab: pg 95  "...such weapons of the flesh as a knife and fork..", a transfered usage.    SaltyBoatr 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not use it when describing items that are defined as weapons that may be used in hunting?  It's used in in exactly the same "transferred" usage in laws worldwide ("deadly weapon", "concealed weapon", and even "hunting weapon), encyclopedias (the 1911 Britannica use of "hunting weapon", this Encarta article), technical jargon ("less lethal weapon", "electroshock weapon"), and the sciences (the anthropology books listed above).  No other word carries the same connotations, the same subtle shades of meaning; "tool" or "implement" are a vast superset, and "arms" is a just a synonym of "weapon".  I agree that it's not up to use to determine at what point a word passes a threshold; but what I do wish you to take note of is the fact that there is a significant body of anthropological literature, source material for this article (or it will soon be, I'm compiling a references for a detailed history right now), that does use the term "hunting weapon" when it refers to spears, atlatls, bows, and rifles, and it is the usage in that field that justifies the usage in an article about that field.  Searching anthropology sources, the term "hunting tool" and "hunting implement" together produce a fraction of the hits that "hunting weapon" does, and they are not as narrowly focused, such as | "hunting tool kit" which includes bow, arrows, knives, string, matches, machetes, and decoy hats.  And don't claim this is "original research", because it's not, it's just plain research.  I'm researching the history of hunting, and over and over again I see the term "hunting weapon" used to describe everything from spears to rifles.  Why shouldn't I use the same term that my sources do?  scot 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, that is a separate question.  I repeat, I agree that your 'plain research' finds usage of the term 'hunting weapon' by some English speaking people.  The question at hand is: Is this global English?  And our choice:  Shall we rely on the authority of the 'plain research' of a Wikipedia editor, or shall we rely on the authority of the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to answer this question?  I see that the OED is the greater authority.  SaltyBoatr 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we shouldn't rely only on the OED. We should rely on as many sources as possible, such as the ones we have mentioned so many times. For starters: every other Oxford University Press Dictionary, Websters, Random House, and a few others,--LWF 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing tack