Talk:World Hunting Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Promotional material

The previous incarnation of this article read like a corporate website. I have replaced it with a stub that gives a proper, neutral encyclopedic treatment. I was tempted to propose the deletion of this article, however google gave 944 hits so I guess it is sufficiently notable to justify an article. However, since most of those hits were critical of the WHA, most of the notability is attributable to the controversial nature of the competition. The new article reflects this more accurately.--Russell E 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, several episodes of blanking vandalism from several users have been the response to my edit, as well as a malicious alteration of my signed comment above, by User:Pete1080. Any repeat performance will be met with a request for administrator intervention. Pease desist. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Russell E 03:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

I have edited this article due to a personal attack violation. Russell E had posted slanderous material. Once again Russell E has came in and edited an aritcle based of his personal opinions. 2pm 8/21/06.

The following comment was deleted by user Pete1080. I am re-inserting it to maintain a record of the discussion.--Russell E 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
(re unsigned edit from Pete1080) please specify exactly which part of my edit you have a problem with. Removing all material critical of the WHA is unacceptable. As I said, the notability of the WHA (and hence, the reason why an article is justfied) stems mainly from controversy and criticism -- i.e. the notability is mostly notoriety. I believe the two setences at the end of my edit accurately and neutrally portray the body of criticism. As such, they are not slanderous. If you do not believe those sentences accurately reflect external notable opinion regarding the WHA, it is up to you to verifiably prove otherwise. Likewise, the rest of the article was simply a factual description-- I cannot see how it can be slanderous but if you have a problem with it, edit it to improve it, or state your specific objections he

re--don't just wipe it out and replace it with promotional material.--Russell E 17:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete1080, firstly Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages is vandalism. Please desist. Secondly, my personal opinion is irrelevant and does not unduly influence the content of my edits. As I have stated three times now, the content of my edit is based on notable public opinion as represented by google hits. This is a common way of getting this information, that is vital to ensure that articles abide by the policy of Neutral Point of View, which requires that where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. Your article ignores this and only presents a positive view of the WHA. My article presents a more balanced view, though if anything the negative side is still under-represented given the overwhelming dominance of negative views in google hits. Please note, that editing an article to correctly present an opposing view is recognised as essential and different to asserting that view, and is certainly not a personal attack.
I will revert the article again. Please read the above links and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy. If you still have a problem please edit it but obey the WP:NPOV policy, which demands that you represent all notable points of view, including opposing ones. If you fail to do this again, since I have no more non-vandalism reverts left under the three-revert-rule I will be forced to seek arbitration to block your policy-violating edits.--Russell E 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

Hi There Russell E, I am willing to work with you to reach NPOV. Here are things you need to consider. *The WHA does not dart, so all your information is false.

  • To say the WHA is looking for a WWE is style is completely bias with out actually seeing what there program does offer.
  • You have included no information on positives such as this *Positive point of view from Chuck Sykes a MAJOR hunting critic.
  • Your petition that you started is 100% bias in your the favor of your POV. That information is not only incorrect, but your personal thoughts and opinions.

If moderators of Wiki followed your rants amongst the different hunting blogs available (hunter480) you will notice a pattern. I would be more than willing to highlight those posts if needed. I have no problem leaving any press links available for readers to view, but if that is the case all would need to be provided, not just the ones you choose. So at this time this article should remain a stub, and let anyone interested in reading what the WHA is read it from their website and make up their own POV. I am reverting the article to a non biast point of view with no press, until you acknowledge all press associated with the WHA, including their new format.

Pete1080 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Pete but you have me confused with someone else -- not that my identity is relevant. I will edit the article to correct the statement about tranquiliser darts. It is not necessary to provide all press links, merely a sample representative of notable opinion on the matter. I will include some of the ones you linked. Note that external links are not expected to present NPOV; NPOV as it applies to external links requires that the selection of links be representative of notable sources. By the way, the Chuck Sykes you link doesn't count as an independent opinion since he states that he is associated with the WHA.--Russell E 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The WHA announced they are not using darts, that is a fact. It is referenced in the Detroit News. This is a neural point of view. I messed up the references tag, at first, but it is there now. It appears I walked into a wiki-war, so if you ever straighten this mess out, please consider the Detroit News reference.AugieWest


Good Luck, Russell E and Pete1080, solving your NPOV issues. Wikipedia needs a WHA page. AugieWest

Augie, sorry your edit got caught up. I have re-instated it as part of the latest version.--Russell E 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete, please see the new version. I would ask that if you still have any problems, either raise them here or modify the article to suit. Please don't just wipe the whole article or replace it with promotional material. I think I have addressed most of your concerns. The comparison is now to the bass fishing tour and not pro wrestling. I added your press links. AugieWest already corrected the statement about darting. I did not add the Chuck Sykes link as it pertains to darting, which is apparently no longer on the cards. Are they the only press articles you have? Even including those, we still have no support expressed for the WHA from any notable person external to that organisation. If there is any it would be good to include it, though you can understand why I didn't given how hard it is to find (or possibly, non-existent).--Russell E 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More promotional material

I just do not think that the material from User:Worldhunt I have just deleted is suitable for an encyclopedia. Perhaps once the competition begins and a following has been established, some short biographies of the competitors might be relevant. For now there is no fan-base and such material isn't appropriate.

I think that one or more people associated with WHA are attempting to use Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle. As I am unsure on exactly how to deal with this, I'm going to try to invite some other editors/admins to come and provide some input.--Russell E 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Futher to the above, I have asked for help at the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal: case 2006-08-22_World_Hunting_Association. --Russell E 02:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More Personal Attack

I am editing more "personal" "bias" "opinion" from [[User:Russell e]|Russell E]].

  • involve the shooting of fenced livestock - this is once again your personal opinion with a derogatory connotation
  • Initially, tranquilizer guns were to be used, but that was changed according to David Farbman, founder of WHA. [1] - This statement is irrelavent.
  • reducing hunting to a game is an insult to the activity - once again this is [User:Russell e]|Russell E]]personal opinion.
  • Online Petitition - once agian your personal petitition

Pete1080 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Fenced livestock is an accurate description. The meaning of fence is obvious. Wikipedia defines livestock as domesticated animals such as deer, which is the case here. They are not wild animals, they're not pets, so they're livestock. How else would you describe them??
  • The information regarding tranquilizer guns is not irrelevant, on the contrary it was an integral part of the proposal and drew much criticism from notable sources, which must be noted according to WP:NPOV
  • reducing hunting to a game being an insult, and the petition: neither of this is an expression of my personal opinion, it is clearly attributed as the opinion of notable critics, whose view must be presented according to WP:NPOV policy.
Therefore, I am reverting your edit.--Russell E 12:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Hi Greg, Your telling me deer are not wild animals? Deer are not domesticated and if you would like we can take a poll on a popular hunting site to determine if Deer domesticated or not. This is the most absurd comment I have read. Shooting vs. Hunting - don't try to kid yourself, if this was an organization that did this I wouldn't be spending my time editing this article. Once again your personal choice of words to try to discredit an organization.

  • notable signers on your petition is an invalid statement, since I could create a petition about you for any reason and create 20,000 users to sign it. There is no way to verify the data to be true and should not be used in Factual information about any organization.
Not sure if this is directed me or someone else called Greg, however I will respond. The Wikipedia livestock entry specifically mentions deer as livestock, both in the introduction and in the table of livestock species. The condition of livestock vs wild isn't determined by genetics: it describes the circumstances of individial aniamals, not the entire species. In fact I doubt there is a single species that doesn't have both wild and captive individuals. Shooting vs Hunting, I don't recall ever having a discussion of this?? As for the petition, I have just noticed that the notable organisations listed on the front page are not claimed to have signed the petition. I thought they had. So, I agree it probably needn't be linked. Apart from this I am reverting much of your changes. Will you please desist from trying to put your POV in the article. Value calls such as "ground-breaking" and "enhance" (the viewer experience) are completely unacceptable! As is the attempt to gloss over the true nature of the competition. --Russell E 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
livestock can be referred to almost anytype of red meat animal, the WHA is very specific in what they are hunting or "shooting"

I have removed the 2 items you had mentioned above and agree with your point. Now if you would please desist from reverting the entire article and not just editing within in it.Pete1080 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not desist from removing your promotional material. Wikipedia is not for advertising. I have replaced the word livestock with the word deer to appease you although I don't see the issue. The rest of your changes I have placed back to my version, because mine is neutrally written and factually accurate, whereas yours contains little factual information and is more or less a mission statement, or spin. Unacceptable. If you still have a problem with it I suggest we stop this edit war until the mediation cabal can help us. Just put a NPOV warning tag at the start of the article if you wish to alert readers to the contention while we wait. --Russell E 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Note, I am not saying the article should not include the stated aims of the WHA, just that it should present them as attributed statements, rather than asserting them as fact. To reflect this, as a show of good faith, I have added a sentence about the WHA's aims, based on the mission statement from their web site. Feel free to improve this (without giving it undue prominence... 2 sentences max I'd say) as long as you clearly attribute the statement as something the WHA claims rather than as fact to be taken at face value.--Russell E 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Greg - Once again a mission statement of a organization is not an advertisement. An advertisement is 'Come to our website and buy our stuff'. There is no reference to any type of advertising within this article.
  • who have argued that reducing hunting to a game is an insult to the activity.
    • I have removed this statement since it is unfair to speak for any business on what their actual beleif is, and this statement is to generalized to mean anything. Be specific before you generalize bussinesses and orginizations thoughts on their behalf.
  • Hunting is different then shooting -
  • I also reposted the press link that was removed.

Pete1080 03:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I assume this is directed at me and not "Greg", whoever that is.
  • Re mission statement: putting the mission statement in as fact instead of an attributed statement is an NPOV violation. Please read the NPOV Policy, in particular the following: "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted". This means, you present them as attributed opinion, not as fact. Also regarding advertising, including the mission statement, which is an element of your marketing plan, is fine as an attributed statememt in the context of a complete factual article. A mission statement presented as fact without supporting neutral material is a pure exceprt from your marketing material, which is what I mean by "advertising". Marketing is much more than "come and buy our stuff".
  • as for "who have argued that reducing hunting to a game is an insult to the activity", generally it is fair to summarize innumerable sources that all say the same thing but in controversial cases it can be better to include specific, representative, verifiable quotes from notable sources. In response to your request I have now done this.
  • hunting is different than shooting, indeed. Hunting is more than just shooting, and if you google "world hunting association" you will see that a very significant proportion of them use the word "hunting" in quotes when referring to the WHA, and/or specifically object to the use of the word "hunting". It is therefore not NPOV to use the word "hunting". I have therefore switched it back to the neutral, factual term "shooting". Your opinion may be that it's hunting, but surely you can't argue that it's not shooting (being the act of firing a gun or an arrow).

--Russell E 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Slanderous Material?

Mr Russel,

Please stop posting SLANDEROUS material. We will deal with this accordingly.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WorldHunt (talk • contribs).

Please be clearer, are you talking about your recent acts of blanking and link corruption vandalism? Do you dispute the content of this article? We need to be clear whether this is plain vandalism, a content dispute, or both. The next instance of vandalism will be met with a request for administrator intervention, so please desist and put your case in an acceptable manner. As for content dispute, please review all of the discussion above, which apparently led to a consensus version of the page. If you take issue with the consensus reached, you must elaborate your objection throughly in terms of how the current version violates wikipedia policy. Slander means something that is not only damaging to reputation, but also false. Please explain why you think some content in the article is false. --Russell E 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost Arrow Ranch is a fenced preserve. You admit as much yourself and the owners of Lost Arrow Ranch don’t try to hide the fact, they promote the quality of the deer within the "preserve". David Farbman said himself in an interview with Outdoor Life’s Michael Hanback that “use of the 1,000-acre preserve allows for a "controlled competition" and ensures that the tournaments will not adversely impact wild game populations or infringe upon hunting opportunities on public and private land for regularly licensed hunters”.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Worldhunt"


[edit] vandalism of page

The WHA home page still lists a program of professional hunting fixtures with dates projected till October 2007. If you wish to change the page to reflect some change in direction from the WHA you can add this in, you don’t need to remove any of the entry that shows the history of the WHA. You will also have to provide some references that illustrate this claimed change. Read the edit page and it clearly states you must be able to verify the content of your entry. If it is beyond you to be able to do this then you should refrain from editing the page at all.

Jindydiver 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHA website. Updated 12/11/2006

read

www.worldhunt.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldhunt (talk • contribs).

Please be more specific as to where in the website these changes are detailed. As I see it, the site still says "The WHA officially launched in June of 2006 with the announcement of a ground-breaking professional competitive Hunting tour, spotlighting some of the world's greatest skilled Hunters, as well as patent-pending technologies in the field and on the website that take Hunting to a new level," [1] without anything saying they have changed their mind. It still talks about the tour, "professional hunters", events and locations [2]. So it doesn't seem much is changed. If you want to make any deletions or additions to the article, please detail here first exactly where on your website those changes are documented.--Russell E 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeing you have again deleted the entire article and replaced it with ad spam without any referencing of your sources (as requested above), I am interpreting your actions as plain old vandalism, to be dealt with accordingly.--Russell E 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

worldhunt.com is an online community and news information center. Mr Russell please stop. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldhunt (talk • contribs).

Please stop deleting information that is quite clearly still included on the WHA website [3]. If you keep doing it without providing verifiable evidence for the change then I will have to request mediation.--Russell E 01:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added some more current information and removed the vandalism. If you have issues with the content then you should discuss them rather than deleting blocks of text.

Jindydiver 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

I am placing a request for comment concerning edits made to this page by User:Worldhunt. To summarize, the present impasse is that Worldhunt claims that the WHA do not conduct fenced tournament hunts, when the website clearly states that they do. Worldhunt has been asked to provide precise references for that claim, but repeatedly refuses to do so, instead just editing without any references ([4] [5] [6] and many more). See above and on User_talk:Worldhunt for discussion. Note, check the histories; user has deleted comments and warnings/block notices on talk pages before [7] so upon seeing this may do so again. This user is violating WP:V, and refusing to follow WP:DR by editing unilaterally and ignoring request for references or discussion. In my opinion the user represents the WHA for promotional purposes, in violation of WP:U and of course WP:NPOV. Previous examples of this include blatant vandalism including breaking external links to unfavourable material and blanking, e.g. [8].

As well as comments on whether or not Worldhunt's edits violate the listed policies (and/or others), I would very much appreciate advice on how to proceed from here. Seeing as Worldhunt will not respond at all to requests for discussion, most of the suggested dispute resolution procedures seem not to apply.--Russell E 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop - All Of You!!!

Boys and Girls,

Please leave this subject to rest. No one cares what the WHA is doing. Please do not make ridiculous statements about "money making" and stop editing each others comments.

JEEEEZ..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete1080 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Finally dropped it?

The web page referred to above has been removed from the WHA site. I can now find no reference on the site to the fenced hunting competition format, so I have modified the article to reflect this fact.--Russell E 09:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == This is blantantly false and/or opinionated ==

The insert and description on worldhunt.com is false and misguided. It is founded on persuiasion and ulterior motives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.169.234.20 (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Explain why. --Russell E 12:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You can't use PERSONAL opinion and expect others to believe this as factual

Mr. Russell you are clearly intertwined in the politics and are working on ulterior motives. Your opinion resonants! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.169.234.20 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I am only working towards adherence with wikipedia policy. Regarding your recent edit, "promotion" is factual since your website clearly is a promotional device. As for "apparently", I can find no official announcement stating categorically that the fenced hunt competition has been abandoned. This fact is merely surmised from the absense of anything pertaining to the fenced hunt on the website. The word "apparently" serves to warn the reader that the truth of what follows cannot be ascertained for certain. If you want to remove it then you'll have to publish on your website some kind of statement explicitly saying that you have abandoned the canned hunt competition concept.--Russell E 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/Talk%7EWorld_Hunting_Association_3490.html"