Talk:Ducks Unlimited

message: Based on some of the light controversy this organization gets from its hunting stance, I am surprised none of the hunting aspect is mentioned in the article.  Based on the POV conversation below, it looks as if it had been at some point and then edited down, then taken out completely.  At the very least, in its present form the article needs cleaning up and more citations.  Since it seems POV is arguable or up in the air for this article, I'm adding the Advert tag instead - the article currently reads more like a press release for DU instead of an objective article. -Thehedgehog 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert Tag 

message: If this is not POV, then I am not sure what is. At the very least, this article REQUIRES sources, since it is clearly a somewhat controversial organization. As it is, it reads like a company press-release. Williamroy3 15:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But.. how many company press releases have you seen that contain a "Criticism" section? The fact that DU is and always has been a pro-hunting organisation is clearly stated in the "Criticism" section, and the objections that DU's critics have leveled are also mentioned. I see no need for a POV tag when both POV's are covered. I suggest the POV tag be replaced with "requires sources" tag... and will do so in the next few days unless someone comes up with a valid reason not to.Grant Gussie 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this guy.  DU is pro-hunting, pro-conserving land.  I think both of these are state well and anyone that reads the article will not say "Oh, I like this organization.  They promote conserving land" and then go attempt to join only to find they also promote hunting.  I do agree more sources are needed for the time being, however on both the main facts and the Criticism area.--WhereAmI 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK... just to be sure I have expanded the paragraph on DUs pro-hunting stance in the introduction section, to the point where the fact that their magazine is a hunting magazine as well as a conservation magazine is also mentioned. I also don't think anyone could mistakingly join DU only to be shocked by the fact that they promote the shooting of ducks. So now the lack of referenced sources remains, in my opinion, the only remaining problem. I will go ahead with replacing the POV tag with a "sources required" tag unless anyone else objects.Grant Gussie 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored POV tag 

message: The "Controversies" section contains a phrase that needs to be rewritten due to weasel words and handwaving: "DU also continues to complete many more successful conservation projects than do many of its detractors."  Anyone want to give this a shot? Bricology (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After 2 years I guess not.172.56.2.230 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words 

message: There was nothing in the references that supported the claims made. It is someone's personal feelings about DU and is unsupported. Criticism is fine but it must be supported so it is not just someone personal feelings which is what wikipedia is not 172.56.2.230 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section