Talk:Wolf hunting controversy

message: It looks like this has already been merged with wolf hunting, and in such an unbiased way! But I'll wait till Monday or Wednesday before pronouncing the edit war resolved. Let's see what Gabriel and Friday say, first. Uncle Ed 15:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
: Seems like a good idea to me.  Worst case, edit warring will continue, but it'll be in it's own article at least.  I hope.  I didn't see anything that jumped out at me as blatantly POV when I first glanced through this.  Altho, now that I look again, I see some POV problems here and in wolf hunting.  I'm not sure it's productive for me to try to edit them, though, I fear that Gabrielsimon will see my edits as picking on him personally.  Friday 18:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

message: I added the npov tag, since User:Gabrielsimon was insistant on certain language I found objectionable.  Here's a few samples of I think is inappropriate:  "Many people attempt to justify it on economic grounds, falsly labeling wolves as destructive predators."  "Hardly sporting."  "Environmentalists and other nature lovers regard wolves as having rights and oppose all hunting of them as cruel."
I believe that my version that has been reverted a few times is more neutral.  Here's a diff that shows a good example:  
There are a few unrelated to POV changes in there as well, as User:Gabrielsimon seems intent on reverting my edits wholesale.  I'd be interested in hearing outside perspectives on this.  Friday 05:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to be rude, but I'm a bit tired of repeating myself.  I already made it clear that I don't think we should label all wolves as destructive.  Please, if you're not going to read what people are saying, stop reverting their edits.  Friday 06:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: A couple of my edits which you repeatedly removed were not intended by me to be related to NPOV.  These were the first sentence, and the removal of "unlike deer, which fall dead..".  See this diff.  I don't know if you really objected to these, so I'll try them again.  Please, if you have problem with some but not all of an edit, don't revert the whole thing.  Just edit the parts you have a problem with.  Friday 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: I removed the npov tag after fixing what were major problems in my opinion.  I'm detailing the changes here. Here's a diff for easy reference: 
Change 1: "Many people attempt to justify it on economic grounds, falsly labeling wolves as destructive predators." has changed to "Many people say that killing wolves is justifiable on economic grounds, labeling wolves as destructive predators."  I believe most editors will find the second wording more neutral.  In particular, we should refrain from assuming truth or falseness to the "destructive predator" claim.
Change 2: Removed "Hardly sporting" sentence from end of paragraph.  It seemed out of place, and was a value judgement.  
Change 3: "Environmentalists" changed to "Some evironmentalists".  I believe it's more neutral to not make "all or nothing" statements.  This change emphasizes that not ALL environmentalists are alike in judgement.  
That's it.  Please, if anyone objects, I'd like it if the objections were explained individually here.  If there are further rollbacks of all 3 changes without explanation, I'll probably undo that change.  Friday 20:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov tag removed 

message: BTW, I'm still concerned about a few sentences.  Not sure what to do about them yet, so I'm posting them here for suggestions.
:"Early settlers in the United States tried to eliminate wolves entirely, and would have made the wolf extinct if possible."  How do we know the intent? Do we have a source for them wanting to make wolves extinct?  
:"After chasing an entire herd into exhaustion, hunters land and casually walk up to wolves and shoot them at close range."  Can you really chase a whole herd at once?  Why don't they seperate?  
: "Ecologists assert that eliminating wolves has bad effects on the natural balance between prey and predator, which concomitant (ripple) effects on the rest of the ecosystem. Wolves pick out the sick or crippled or elderly deer from a herd, thinning it and preventing the bad effects of overpopulation." The language just seems weird.
If I can see a way to improve these, I'll take a crack at it.  Friday 20:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  questionable sentences 

message: I don't understand where you're coming from with this.  Care to elaborate?  I feel that the language in my version is more clear.  Particularly, it's not neccessary to say that some people consider wolves to be living things; there's no serious dispute there.  If you disagree with some but not all of an edit, please don't revert the whole thing.  Friday 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  distorted meaning? 

message: A few days ago I asked for sources on the bits you keep insisting on.  You have not provided any.  I think you're assuming that you personally have perfect knowledge of the intentions and motivations of long-dead American settlers.  Also, is it really possible to chase an entire pack at once via helicopter?  I don't know one way or another, but it seemed odd to me, so a source would be helpful.  Friday 07:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understood me.  I was asking for a source.  Your own experiences are not a source. WP:NOR.  I understand that wolves are pack animals, I just find it surprising that they ALWAYS stay together with the pack, no matter what's chasing them.  That's why I was asking for a source.  I'll leave that alone for now though; I'm no expert in wolf behavior.  Since you don't seem to object to me tweaking the assumption of settler motivations, I'll give that a go.  Friday 07:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: I'd like to add a paragraph that states that wolf hunting is a valid form of game management, specifically the management of large ungulates. The premise is based upon the following statement: "I can manage a moose population for human consumption, or for wolf consumption, and my job has at times required me to alternate between both. I can bet that there are people in this room who are angrily opposed to one or the other of these manangement schemes, and some people are opposed to both." I will need to do a bit of research before properly attributing it, but it describes wolf control in terms of game management. The individual making the statement is a public employee, whose job is to maintain a sustainable moose population. His management objectives are directed by legislative and public opinion, and I suspect that if he were not subject to external direction, that he would not choose to kill wolves. But in the public science presentation where he made that statement, he seemed to be quite professional and dedicated to his tasks, and if his job required him to kill wolves, he would do it.
Does anyone think this belongs in this article, and have any ideas on how to present it? RPellessier | (Talk) 04:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article is about the controversy, any sufficiently verifiable "side" to the controversy should be represented.  I still have doubts that this article should exist seperately from Wolf hunting, myself.  But, IMO certainly it's appropriate to talk about game management practices.  Friday (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Management 

message: Looking at this again, I see there hasn't been any progress in a while.  I think that Wolf hunting covers all the same stuff and is a better article, so I've redirected this accordingly.  Friday (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect