Talk:Wolf hunting controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Thoughts 2 Neutrality dispute 3 npov tag removed 4 questionable sentences 5 Game or "game" 6 distorted meaning? 7 Sources? 8 Scare quotes 9 merge? 10 Game Management 11 Redirect

[edit] Thoughts

Here's a few thoughts on the current text. I'm not gunna dive into changes for fear of more edit warring.

"Many people apptempt to justify it on economic grounds, falsely labeling wolves as destructive predators." Sounds pretty POV to me. We had another editor assert that calling wolves destructive predators is NOT false. At any rate, nobody's going to try to argue that they're not predators, right? Apparently "destructive" is the bone of contention here. Can we all agree that wolves sometimes destroy livestock?

"They consider them challenging game, because they can take a bullet and keep going - unlike deer, which simply fall dead on the spot." Where did this come from? Deer SOMETIMES "fall dead on the spot", as do wolves sometimes, but this is an overgeneralization.

Not sure what the "Hardly sporting." is doing in there, in quotes. Is this a quote from a particular person or group?

"Environmentalists and other nature lovers regard wolves as having rights and oppose all hunting of them as cruel." Quite an overgeneralization. Plenty of folks call themselves environmentalists, who don't particular think animals have "right" or that hunting is automatically cruel.

Anyway, there's my two cents right now. Thanks to all editors who are trying to discuss and edit in a community-friendly way, rather than by edit wars. Friday 18:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The first one seems the most blatantly in need of fixing to me, so I'll attempt to make it more NPOV. Friday 19:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the draft was simply right off the top of my head. I just started typing and kept going until I ran out of steam. I got the take a bullet thing from a Wikipedia talk page - guess which one and who said it. It's more a summation of the inter-contributor dispute than anything else. If you can whip it into shape, more power to you. Today is not your day, anyway ;-) Uncle Ed 20:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on this. It's a good place to start. We'll see how it goes. Friday 21:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

you can not claim that all wolves are destructive, that is an unfair generalization, typial of those who wished nothing morethen thier eradication. this is why i put faslly labelled in there, it is to dispell the POV that all are destructive, yet you keep removing it, are you advocating this generalization, that is so obviously false? Gabrielsimon 00:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

im not the one pusheing POVs here, as it seems, friday is pushing a pro hunter POV Gabrielsimon 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that I did claim that all wolves are destructive. I claimed that people labelled them destructive. However, what does it even mean to say that they're "destructive" or not? When a wolf eats a rabbit, is the rabbit not destroyed in the process? Maybe we should be more specific, like saying they can be destructive to livestock. Friday 04:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

destrutive was being plyed asa an absolute, when it isnt, to that i objected. differentwords must be played in order to acheive equillibrium. different words must be played in order to tel lthe truth in an unbiased manner. Gabrielsimon 04:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to address some of my above objections in recent edits. I'm curious about wolves being considered tough tho, I'm not sure how to confirm this. Do you have a source? Near where I live we have coyotes, which are similiar to wolves, and they're not considered all that tough. If we knew what cartridges people used for wolf shooting, this might be informative. Friday 04:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

this edit seems very bizarre to me. It looks like you're reverting me just for the sake of reverting. Do you care do discuss edits here, or are you just going to revert anything I do? Friday 04:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

your edits are pro hunter. that can not be allowed. Gabrielsimon 04:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

best to asked about wolvesbeing tough, as sources hgo, it was his edit, not mine, tho they are remarkably resilliant. spend time with s few in the forest . ig you can get thjem to trust you, and youll seeee/ Gabrielsimon 04:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You certainly have a unique perspective. How interesting that your spending time with wolves in the forest has taught you about how they react to gunshot wounds. Were the wolves in question being shot at the time you were socializing with them? Unfortunately, your own personal experiences are not considered verifiable. Is there anything I can do to get you to agree to stop reverting changes to this article? Friday 04:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, i berleivwe my perspective is unique... did you know it took me six months to get them to trust me? any hoo, as for thew thung about how theyt are tough, one of the ones i spent time with has soime old seeeming bullet wounds, so i assume it was a tough pup, so to speak, that it could still walk. as for the article, if you would please try to see things from the perspective that isnt the hunters perspective, you might see my point in why the edits were pro hunter.... im sorry if this isnt making sense...

Gabrielsimon 04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry too. I'd like it if you'd take a look at the current version and discuss here anything you disagree with. Particularly, let me know where I'm being pro-hunter and I'll do whatever I can to fix it. Friday 04:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. As for your own unique experiences with wolves, please read WP:NOR. Your own experiences can't be used in Wikipedia, until they've been published in some other place first. So, if you assert things that sound implausible to others, you should be able to back it up with something other than your own experience. This is what no original research is about. Friday 04:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

the current version is pro hunter, and thus NPOV. Gabrielsimon 04:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If it's pro-hunter, it would not be NPOV (neutral point of view). If you really feel that it's not neutral, feel free to put the npov tag on it. It may bring in other people to help settle the matter. One thing people usually want in those cicumstances, is some explanation on the talk page about why the neutrality of the article is disputed. Friday 05:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I see that you're revert warring again, without reasoning things out on the talk page. I had hoped that your multiple bans for this type of behavior would have made an impression, but I see that it did not. I'm going to tag this for POV, and we'll see what other editors say. Friday 05:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

tue cyhanghes you were iuntruducing WERE pov. Gabrielsimon 05:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

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: [1]

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)

claiming all wolves are to be labelled as destructive IS npov. Gabrielsimon 05:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

then you should find other words that say what you mean instead of words that leaave that interpretation open. Gabrielsimon 06:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

repeating yourself without chaging anything is of course why this conversation tracks back. Gabrielsimon 06:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

OK, nobody's given a response to the npov tag, other than saying that claiming all wolves are destructive is not acceptable. I will refrain from saying that, and attempt to remove my other npov objections. I guess I might as well remove the tag, too. Friday 20:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] npov tag removed

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: [2]

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)

[edit] questionable sentences

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)

Nobody came up with sources, so I'm making some tweaks in hopes of better factuality and NPOV. Friday 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game or "game"

Gabrielsimon, I see you've been edit warring again. This time you're adding back in the scare quotes around "game". Please explain yourself. According to m-w.com, "game" means an animal that is hunted. I believe the term is apt, and I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss in a civilized manner instead of simply reverting. Friday 19:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

sure, IM warring, you atre the one who kept reverting my edits until youd used up all theree of youredits. in either case, game is applied loosly here because this animal is a prediator, its not prey. Gabrielsimon 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, what are you talking about? I made the change from "game" to game in response to some anonymous editor who put in the scare quotes. Then, you started reverting me. I'm not interested in fighting with you, I'm interested in making articles better. You have ignored my explanation of why the term game is appropriate. Please, look it up in a dictionary, and then change it back. Friday 20:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

the change was you removing what belongs, not the other way around, i was repairing. Gabrielsimon 20:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You deleted this comment on mine when you posted your last. Please don't do that. Here it is again:

I'm really, really trying to understand the objection. This article is about people hunting wolves. Game refers to animals that are hunted. Where's the problem? By my count, I could change it again but I'm already closer to 3 reverts than is my usual habit. Friday 20:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

i didnt delete anything, perhap[s i hit SAVE after you did, when enterinhg my tewxt. Gabrielsimon 20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Check the history, you'll see that you did remove it. However, I'm willing to believe it was an error on your part rather than being intentionally antisocial. Now, if you could please explain why the word game does not mean what the dictionary says it means, I'd appreciate it. I'll even make it easy, here's what m-w.com says:

4 a (1) : animals under pursuit or taken in hunting; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food

I believe since we're talking about wolf hunting, wolves are game. If you cannot provide any reason for the scare quotes, I'll take them out. Friday 20:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

ive already told you my reason. Gabrielsimon 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You must mean your assertion that predators can never be game? Do you agree that it does not match the dictionary definition? Animals can be both hunters, and hunted. Game refers to any animals that's hunted, as far as I can tell. Friday 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to work around the dispute by avoiding the word "game". I still feel it's perfectly cromulent, but a compromise is better than an edit war. Friday 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] distorted meaning?

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)

some of the changes , as i see it, changed things , youll note that i left some of them intact, and only changed a few f them. the tried to kill wolves wherever they could item is something that i believed belonged as it currently is as a statement that americans, in thier fear atemtped to cause the extinction of wolves, which they did. and the helicopter piloted hnting parites DO chase down entire pacs, so i put that back in, along with the words point blank range, to indicate thathte wolf is totally defenceless, which is true... close range, you see can be defined as within springing distance, point blank range is right in the face of the target, so i believe it is a more suited wording. Gabrielsimon 07:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Sources?

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)

behaviouralluy, packs do not trend to scatter, they will follow the alphba pair, because it makes them feel safe. remember, ive spent time with wild ones.... (side note, thubnderstorm outside, ... such lovly light shows!!) check out the national geographic web site, that might help... Gabrielsimon 07:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

sounds fair. Gabrielsimon 07:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like more info on the "entire pack" chasing thing, and the "shooting as many as they like". Is it legal? Where are you talking about, specifically? Sounds suspicious and POV to me. Friday 18:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scare quotes

Yes, I noticed the scare quotes sneaking back in. Didn't we already talk about that? Can you provide any justification for them? Friday 07:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

simply that the term "justified" is one that is more or less in dispute, and that its meaning is in this case not uiniversal. Gabrielsimon 08:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you see that the article is not trying to say that wolf killing is or is not justifiable? It only asserts that some people say it's justifiable. It'd be even better if we had a quote of a specific person saying it was justifiable, but we better work with what we have. What do you think of a sentence like this?

They oppose all hunting of them and condemn it as "cruel and barbaric".

Would that be OK? Friday 08:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

if balance is to be maintained, it would seem to fit. Gabrielsimon 08:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I personally think it's better without the quotes in both places, but that's just me. If we're going to use quotes, I'd prefer them to be actual quotes from real, identified people. Friday 08:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

ill concede the point. Gabrielsimon 09:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge?

Anyone else think this article is not needed? I don't see what it covers that isn't or couldn't already be in Wolf hunting. Not sure why we need a seperate one here, it'll only me more work trying to keep them consistant. Friday 13:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, merge it with wolf hunting. Neither article is very long, there is no need to keep the controversy segregated from the main article. Rhobite 16:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Let me violently oppose any merge. The world is not reduced to the United States. Wolf hunting is traditional and, by and large, more common outside the US than in. The controversy on the other hand is almost entirely American and modern. The controversy page is needed so that people can discuss (and I use that word loosely) the controversy. Hunting has little to do with that. What will happen is that the non-American anthropological and historical aspects of wolf hunting will be swamped by debates about baiting, PETA, the NRA, and the up-coming elections in Alaska. So there is a very very good reason to keep the controversy segregated from the main article. Just look at this page already - and this is with most work being done by two fairly sensible and professional editors. So keep the politics and the morality here. Leave the actual practice, the social science aspects over there please. Lao Wai 10:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game Management

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)

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)

[edit] Redirect

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)