Talk:Safari Club International

message: I'm not opposed to the recent edits to the SAH section.  However the reference sourced is pretty biased.  There are other more reputable sources to this story that are not part of an agenda.  Such as  
.  Is it possible to re-edit the section to reflect a more NPOV source and also put the 'Current Event' Banner over this section as the issue is still in flux?   Zonedar (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got those references, please swap out what's there. I agree the ref that I posted wasn't wonderful, but it did seem to have a lot of information. Feel free to re-edit. I hadn't seen that info before, so I didn't check for other sources, but thought it should be included. ThanksBob98133 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sportsman Against Hunger

message: The recent edits and reverts got me to thinking about the line in the Revenue Sources section about the numbers of guns SCI members own.  It doesn't seem to belong in this section and I question the source.  It's a pretty benign fact, but I'd like to see a reference from an more objective source than HSUS.  So I'm going to remove it.  Zonedar (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. That info seemed a bit odd. I don't see how it's relevant without some basis for comparison and certainly a good reference.Bob98133 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revenue Sources

message: SCI and SCIF are separate organizations and I don't think they should be treated as if they were. This page was exclusively about SCI and someone seems to have gone in and inserted segments on SCIF. Perhaps that should be made a separate section or separate page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhouseman (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has commented on this in 5 months, so I have begun to revert SCIF material from this article. These are two separate legal entitites and it doesn't make sense to have them on the same page. For example McDonalds and Ronald McDonald House have separate pages and barely mention each other although that company and charity have a similar relationship as SCI and SCIF. I will be removing the Humanitarian section and anything other than the mention under conservation projects. The info about SCIF should be on a separate page. It's fine to say that SCI created SCIF or supports it, but whatever SCIF does is legally separate from whatever SCI does.Bob98133 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look father down the talk page.  It was discussed there.  SCIF shares the same directors and officers as SCI.  SCIF is a sub organization to SCI and created solely for tax purposes.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonedar (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Sharing the same directors and officers does not make two separate legal entities the same. It just means that there happen to be two entities with the same directors and boards. I just read the SCIF Bylaws - the only mention of SCI is that the officers are the same and that SCI groups can raise money for SCIF. While it's true that SCI maintains control over SCIF by having the same directors and board, SCIF was set up for tax purposes, and is NOT a part of SCI. It should have its own article, a brief mention in this article, or get dumped altogether. As I asked before, why isn't the Ronald McDonald Foundation as prominent in the McDonald's article, even though it bears a similar relationship to McD's as SCIF does to SCI? SCI should not be taking credit for accomplishments of SCIF - if they wanted to do that they should have bypassed the tax-deductible status and just donated directly to charities or causes.Bob98133 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reply answer is that if Mcdonalds went away,  Ronald McDonald Foundation would likely continue to function.  It is truly independent.  I doubt one could state the same for SCIF if SCI disappeared.  SCIF is subordinate to SCI, even if they are separate 'legal entities'.  This is clearly evident in the way SCIF's board is set up.  A quick look at RMHC's 2006 annual report shows that only 10 out of 30 of the officers and trustees are associated with McD or it's franchises.  That being said, as there are only two opinions being expressed here, I'd like to hear others comment on this.  Zonedar (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SCIF

message: I took the liberty of removing a couple of links that, IMHO, were simply put in as a POV.  The article already contains a critisism section as well as POV in the ESA section, for example.  Not meaning to get into an edit war, but I'd sure like to the thoughts supporting putting these links into the article. Zonedar 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. When I have time, I'll take the information from the links you removed and put it into the criticism section, with necessary references to these sources.Ollyn 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated links

message: Key detail missing. How many members in organization? --MarsRover 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many members

message: Is 
Rhino Black/White
Tiger
Leopard
Polar bears
All Nth American Bears
Still avaliable to hunt?
I assume cheetah is.--Polygamyx4 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left you private talk - I agree. Two opposing POV arguments with bad references don't make sense. Maybe some real references exist for both sides of this.Bob98133 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree and reinstated. If a mainstream organisation like HSUS criticises SCI, then that criticism is notable. So. of course, is any reply from SCI to that criticism. Only if the criticism is demonstrably false, does it become POV. MikeHobday (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I have no issues with listing criticism (although I'd disagree with HSUS being 'mainstream').  But it is worth noting, as they are one of SCI's critics.  I guess my main issue was the fact that they were one liner attacks.  I have no problem with your changes.Zonedar (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree with you that the original wording was stark and unencyclopaedic. If the SCI has responded, or if there is good reason to know that it thinks the criticism in any way unfair or misleading, I'd support that view being entered too. MikeHobday (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a bit.  Not perfect but it's all I had time for.  In reality the whole article needs to be gone over.  Lot's of unreferenced citations (and, IMHO, POV).Zonedar (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endangered Species Avaliable in Wild/Canned? 

message: Is it really appropriate and in keeping with the NPOV to cite the Humane Society of the United States as an authority on whether or not SCI allows animals from canned hunts in their record books? Apparently, "Safari Club does allow persons to seek recognition [for animals from "canned hunts"], but only under limitations that most preserves can’t meet" (from counterbias.com).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.40.69 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humane Society of the United States? 

message: Is this section necessary? It is already mentioned in Leadership section. Every large organization has an annual convention with the same sort of activities. I don't see that listing items sold at auction at the convention or the financial proceeds of the convention add much to this article. I'll remove this section unless there are compelling reasons to keep it. Bob98133 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual hunters convention section 

message: The last two revisions both contain good info that is referenced. From what I can see, SCI used to encourage tax breaks for hunting but the IRS changed the rules. Maybe the two editors who are reverting each other can combine the info into one concise, well-referenced paragraph which would make the article stronger and less POV? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SCI & IRS

message: Is there some reason that every award that this group issues should be listed in this article? It makes the article unreadable. Maybe there should be a separate article of SCI Awards? If you look at Boy Scouts of America, that article doesn't list every merit badge awarded and what youhave to do to get it. I say that this entire section should be reduced to one short paragraph that SCI awards members who meet certain goals, otherwise it's just a grocery list of internal criteria for awards.Bob98133 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards?

message: #Per talk entry 1/14/08, I have removed the grocery list of awards.
#link to record book didn’t go there, needs – fact tag inserted 
#link to Mission Statement didn’t go there – inserted fact tag
#deleted section on INternatinal Wildlife Museum – this is a municipal museum, no relation to SCI indicated
#Charity Navigator link did not support amount of money used for conservation – “program expenses” do not equal conservation. Fact tag added
#Sportsman Against Hunger reference no longer available online – added fact tag
#SafariCare link fails to load, added fact tag.
#Safari Wish Program – removed reference to self-published article (blog), added fact tag
#removed ‘“claimed to be the “industry’s largest convention”’ – Wiki not the place for unsubstantiated claims. What industry?
#deleted grocery list of items auctioned at convention and gross dollar income – all orgs have conventions, auctions, etc. not Wiki worthy stuff – already discussed on talk
#deleted list of advertisers from magazine section
#added fact tag to more lobbying successes
#Criticism/Canned Hunts, removed unsupported references to other orgs since article is not about them  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob98133 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the page you referenced, the museum is a part of SCIF (foundation) not SCI. For tax reasons, or whatever other reason, SCI decided that the museum should be a separate legal entity, so it really doesn't belong on the SCI page. If there were a page for SCIF, it would belong there. I guess it would be OK to say that SCI set up this non-profit and maybe they do something else, but legally they are a separate subject. Anyhow, that's my take on it.Bob98133 (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SCIF is simply the 501(c)(3) charitable arm of SCI.  SCIF's directors and officers are the same and SCIs.  Their terms " commence, coincide and terminate" together.   In the preamble to the article SCIF is mentioned as part of SCI.  Perhaps there needs to be a disambiguation page for SCIF that links to the SCI page, but a new separate article certainly is not necessary.  If that's the case them the museum should certainly be mentioned on the SCI page. Zonedar (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources Needed, Awards Removed

message: The sources cited in the new addition to the ednagered species section are not neutral. Source 26 is a hunting organization and source 28 is SCI commenting about CITES. I didn't revert this edit, since the information might be correct, but if the FWS or CITES is being referenced, they should be referenced directly, not from a biased web site. Bob98133 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your issues.  But the criticisms referenced also came from a non-neutral source.  I was simply trying to add SCI's responses.   As was previously mentioned by MikeHobday, this is a criticism section.  The criticisms are notable on their face, as are the responses.  However, please feel free to find independent references.Zonedar (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am from Germany, so please don't look on my spelling faults. Seems you have the same problems as we have in Germany with references pro-gun or pro-hunting. Evidently the main newspapers never publish positive arguments and the special magazines are not neutral enough for WP. Maybe this sources of a big international association pro hunting which is a speaking NGO at UN Small Arms Biennale will be accepted as proof. SCI is one of their members: visit their world symposium on www.wfsa.net/environment.html Triebel (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: recent endangered species sources

message: I don't see how the "promoting questionable tax deductions section" is at all directly related to SCI.  Maybe its due for some rewording or just deletion? I dunno, I'm new here. Just my thoughts.
BMello324 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting questionable tax deductions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Safari Club International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724072119/http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/05-17432.html to http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/05-17432.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910210343/http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/docs/content/165/SCI_2005_990.pdf to http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/docs/content/165/SCI_2005_990.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Safari Club International. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725135908/http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/content/index.cfm?action=view&content_id=324 to http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/content/index.cfm?action=view&content_id=324
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921051644/http://www.safariclubfoundation.org:80/humanitarian/default.htm to http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/humanitarian/default.htm#sensory
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116044352/http://www.safariclubfoundation.org:80/content/index.cfm?action=view&content_id=360 to http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/content/index.cfm?action=view&content_ID=360
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725140200/http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/content/index.cfm?action=view&content_ID=240 to http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/content/index.cfm?action=view&content_ID=240
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615102044/http://www.hsus.org/about_us/about_hsus_programs_and_services/eye_on_the_opposition/a_view_to_a_kill_how_safari_club_intl_works_to_weaken_esa_protections.html to http://www.hsus.org/about_us/about_hsus_programs_and_services/eye_on_the_opposition/a_view_to_a_kill_how_safari_club_intl_works_to_weaken_esa_protections.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421224056/http://www.hsus.org:80/press_and_publications/press_releases/trophy_hunting_group_asks.html to http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/trophy_hunting_group_asks.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505170528/http://www.safariclubfoundation.org:80/content/index.cfm?action=view&content_ID=230&Content_Menu_ID=227 to http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/content/index.cfm?action=view&content_ID=230&Content_Menu_ID=227
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907170738/http://www.endangeredlaws.org/case_cary.htm to http://www.endangeredlaws.org/case_cary.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725140321/http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/articles/index.cfm?action=view&article_ID=2879 to http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/articles/index.cfm?action=view&article_ID=2879
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified