Talk:Trophy hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-28. The result of the discussion was speedy keep per WP:CSK, not even the nominator argued for deletion.

[edit] Disputes

I'm opening the discussion page with an explanation why I've put up 2 dispute flags.

This article appears to have been subject to a good number of random drive by edits, with little substance one way or another and no previous discussion. It appears to have a long history of sniping back and forth with both sides putting up biased and/or commercial references, with no attempt at NPOV and with little if any wiki:verifiable fact on either side.

Is it better to make it into a redirect article or move it to Hunting or have it deleted? As it stands it is a minimal article at best and its past edits reflect a swing back and forth between 2 POVs.Trilobitealive 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(It seems fairly clear that this article only contains a tiny fraction of the information on trophy hunting in the hunting article so rather than merging my vote will be to convert it to a redirect.)Trilobitealive 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this article is less biassed than the trophy hunting section of the hunting article which contains (for example) the strange claim that vegetarianism is at the forefront of opposition to trophy hunting. I therefore query the NPOV tag. However, given the brief nature of this article, I would tend to favour a redirect, so that the best of both articles could appear in one place. MikeHobday 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that political vegetarianism and hunting opposition probally co-evolved and one can see the same players in both theatres.

Back on-topic... Being a newby here I don't know that I could technically accomplish a redirect while merging the article with the section on the other one. Maybe the biases could cancel one another out?Trilobitealive 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As you'll see, I've added what I think are the decent bits of this article to the trophy hunting section of the hunting article. For my part, I'm happy for you to go ahead and redirect. MikeHobday 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, though I'm going to leave the talk page here so it won't get lost on the other page. Trilobitealive 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Is there any objection to merging the article to the section in hunting? The only opposition was shown on the AFD page, but the primary complaint was that the people supporting the redirect were animal activists or childish. There was a statement saying that there is plenty of information available.

The destination section is much more well written (with a style shift but still obtains an NPOV), is slightly larger, and appears to fit well into the article. Unless there's going to be additional sections added to this page in question, the main article will look awkward "See Trophy hunting for more information" without supporting content on the sub-article. --Sigma 7 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not even any reason for you to consider merging this. You're just being incredibly bureaucratic and trying to impress ol' Jimbo Wales himself. 70.92.96.98 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The merge was requested when some editors noticed similarities between this article and the main one, which is a valid reason for requesting a merge (and something that you should have read in the discussion above). A valid reason for cancelling or undoing a merge is a section becoming too large to be contained within a single article.

I also noticed that you were previously blocked for personal attacks. --Sigma 7 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Should not be merged Headphonos 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Debates are not a call to votes - they are a means to generate concensus by finding the best solution. If there are no arguments giving reasonable explainations on why the article should be kept seperate (or there are no serious attempts to address the issues raised), there will still be requests to merge the article - especially if there are only one or two "votes" opposing that position. For more information, see WP:ILIKEIT.

Also, the merge tags are meant to generate discussion before performing the actual merge. Erasing them without explainations only shuts down discussions rather than encouraging them (as you stated that you wanted during the AFD.) --Sigma 7 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The following debate is relevant to the merge discussion, and is taken from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trophy_huntingMikeHobday 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand - This article has plenty of potential for expansion, which is all that is required for an article to exist at wikipedia. There are 7 articles at wikipedia linked to this page. Article was +tagged for merger with hunting January 3, 2007 and #redirected January 5, 2007 : i.e. inappropriate time for participation. Headphonos 12:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this nominated? --Sigma 7 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  Note I left a message on the nominator's talk page asking him to complete the nomination by giving a reason! SkierRMH 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Stop acting childish and read my entry - two animal rights activists #Redirected the article to hunting, this would be the same as a "Rename" nomination, so it should be voted on, wikipedia does not want slanted opinions, even those of animal activists...got it ?! Headphonos 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment First off, lay off the personal attacks - clearly two people were curious why an "Article for Deletion" started out with "Keep and Expand"! Normally the nominator is giving reasons for "Deleting" here, not keeping. Second, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments that the change to a redirect was inappropriate, ill timed, and biased. Third, this appears to be more of the beginning of a content/merge dispute, which I agree should be nipped in the bud (as per walton monarchist89). SkierRMH 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• When discussing redirects, it's traditional to use the talk-page rather than using an AFD. In any case, the redirect request isn't related to a POV, since an unbiased user would see that the Trophy Hunting section on the Hunting page is much more developed (and has been that way for at least a year when compared to Trophy hunting.) While the trophy hunting page was created first, it seems as the associated contributor to the hunting article was unaware of the subarticle in question and developed the content in the main page instead.

Calling people animal rights activists also undermines claims of POV, especially when they write what appears to be reasonable explainations to their claims or edits. Even though the discussion window was shorter than normal (since Trophy hunting wasn't edited that much), redirects will take place if there's no reasonable expectation of opposition. --Sigma 7 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, don't redirect - should not be merged with Hunting, as there's enough info already to make this an independent article. More sourcing needed, but I don't even see why this article's being considered for deletion. Walton monarchist89 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - based on edit histories, the section in Hunting was much more advanced and developed independantly. If the section becomes too large or unwieldly, it will then become suitable for a seperate article. --Sigma 7 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't feel strongly either way. However, if the trophy hunting article is kept, the text should be deleted and replaced with the text at hunting#trophy hunting which is fuller and more neutrally worded. MikeHobday 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SHOULD NOT BE MERGED

Trophy hunting is very specialized, many a times even as large a fee as US$60000 is charged as Trophy fees for hunting an exotic animal in exotic lands or on hunting ranches, some of it is used and plouged back into conservation of Endangered species, there is a very important wildlife conservation aspect to trophy hunting, some of the money goes back to countries and very poor communities who then have an incentive to save these and other highly endangered species and their original habitatAtulsnischal 09:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)