Talk:Opposition to hunting

message: I'm going to create a stub article here and work on expanding it over the next few weeks. I hope to shortly add a history of the anti-hunting political movement and discussion of current issues. I'm wondering if I need to add in its definition that it is primarily a UK phenomenon? Anyone is welcomed to contribute as long as they keep a NPOV in keeping with Wikipedia policies.
Yes class thing in UK as most other places dotn have class anymore or there its not related to hunting.--Polygamist times 4 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: introduction

message: I've removed the reference because it does not confirm the comment in the article. Indeed, the statement in the cited source, "it was not class war as we know it. It was not launched by the tribunes against the toffs - it was the other way round" implies perhaps the opposite of the comment in this article. I think beter evidence is needed for this assertion to stand. MikeHobday 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed a new link as the source for the statement that much anti-hunting energy derives from class differences.  Frankly, if one searches the internet for anti-hunting and class there are so many sources that it almost seems this fact should not require a source.  I understand that some of the editors of this article and many dealing with this subject are passionate advocates involved in this struggle.  This is a controversial subject, but the fact that this is primarily a British phenomenon and hunting has such a particularly class-based history in that country are not just coincidences.  Most of the anti-hunting support is found in the Labour party there, a party founded on the principles of class-struggle.  It may be hard for many of the wikipedians in the UK to imagine, but hunting in the United States is largely divorced from issues of class.--Counsel 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regrettably, the new reference is assertion rather than fact. And assertion by an opponent is hardly the most reliable source! MikeHobday 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Difficulty for me to advise you on sources for a statement that is not true! Fortunately, I don't have to. See WP:V for the rules. MikeHobday 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this statement and the referenct I think it is best to end with something to the effect that according to X's perception A is true but according to y's perception B is true and leave it to the reader to sort out truth versus falsehood. My 2 centavos...Trilobitealive 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an important point. How do you find objective and independent experts on a subject that most people with knowledge also feel passionately? Take a political analogy, however. We would not use a Republican as an authorative source on (say) the Hilary Clinton article. MikeHobday 07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My strongest objection is to statements that are both false and unverified. According to WP:V, perhaps we should remove statements that are true but unverified, but I would personally not tend to edit in that style. As for the League statement, my view is yes, it should be reported as a statement of an organisaton's policy rather than a statement of belief. How can an encyclopedia know what is believed? On the other hand, I do not claim expertise in WP:V. Sorry forbot being more helpful. MikeHobday 07:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that you want to exclude information that is false and unverifiable.  This sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but how does this work in practice.  This again leaves you alone the ultimate arbiter of what is included.  Take the following example from the entry from the entry on the US Democratic Party:  "Since the 1990s and the shift towards third-way politics employed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party has become less ideologically driven and more centrist in the American political spectrum as it attempts to expand its appeal to independent voters."  This is useful information.  It is entirely unverifiable.  Some might even argue it is false.  Are we to exclude something like this?  Your rationale would allow anyone who disagrees philosophically to deny wikipedia users this information.  Some information is inherently difficult to verify.--Counsel 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a cheap answer - but it's not my criteria that matters, it's the Wikipedia policy. My personal views rightly count for naught. To be honest, I think the wording is still suspect. I do not know what "has an element of" means, for example. I want to give this more serious thought, because it is an important issue. Let me give this some thought, and perhaps I'll use the talk page to suggest some language. MikeHobday 17:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Class struggle

message: Should this article still be considered a stub and an orphan? IMHO, thanks primarily to the efforts of MikeHobday and Counselit appears to have outgrown its stub classification and possibly the orphan classification as well. (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment)
: Endorse! I've removed them both. Rockpocket 05:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub status and orphan status

message: Species designated as "endangered" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are protected from hunting in the U.S. therefore hunting endangered species is illegal in the U.S. I should have made that particular distinction I guess. Bugguyak 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are hunted elsewhere too. 81.107.185.168 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose my point was that endangered species are NOT hunted everywhere. Perhaps someone could expand on where exactly endangered species are hunted.Bugguyak 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And some endangered species are legally hunted in a controlled manner where they are not only overabundant, but a nuisance and dangerous.... -- Fyslee / talk 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have references for this it would be very interesting, however an overabundant endangered species seems to be an oxymoron.Bugguyak 15:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some animals are endangered or threatened when one looks globally at the issue, but in small local areas may be so abundant as to be a nuisance. The elephant comes to mind. I think it is classified as protected, rather than endangered, but the principle applies, nonetheless. Hunting of elephants is highly controlled and limited to where there is a real need for it to be done. -- Fyslee / talk 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But protected species and endangered species are very different in their conservation status. A protected species can be hunted with permits or licenses, for example most migratory birds are protected. I still do not know of any endangered animal that is legally hunted for sport in any country. Though I am certain that endangered gorillas are hunted for the bushmeat trade in Africa, but that is not legal in Africa either. I thought the passage should distinguish the fact that hunting endangered species is not legal in countries under CITES or with the equivilant of the US endangered species act. Bugguyak 20:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that right? I thought CITES permitted limited hunting, though I may be wrong? MikeHobday 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunting endangered species

message: I removed the Henry Salt page as an EL, but I noted that almost all the pages listed are for general animal rights/welfare orgs, not specifically anti-hunting. If HSUS or PETA have web sites or features on this topic, maybe they could be linked, or if there are organization specifically opposed to hunting, but just having a list of organizations that oppose hunting seems odd.Bob98133 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: external links

message: Okay I removed   a cartoon that has been a personal favorite of mine for quite some time, and I dont know how I originally stumbled across it.  As much as I love the cartoon, I dont think we should be using it here.   The cartoon is funny precisely because it's unrealistic ... and we are attributing to it a very serious message that may or may not have been intended by the original author. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, —Soap— 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kittelsen cartoon