Talk:Fox hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fox hunting is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
  • Tom Ashcroft. "Killjoys ban fox hunts in England", Chalotte Observer, March 5, 2005. (details)

Subpage:/2006 Rewrite

Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Request for Consensus (Image)

A member of IFAW (User Talk:212.240.148.42) posted a couple of images to the article, one of which showed a mutilated fox. I don't think they're necessary, but I was reverted by MikeHobday. I'm going to remove them again until we have consensus. Should we Keep or Remove? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Remove - I don't think the images serve any encyclopedic purpose -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove - I don't really see how it makes the article more encyclopaedic. Owain.davies 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Add - Five "chocoloate box" images of hunts in the countryside paint a one sided image of the activity. The fact that animals are torn apart at the end of the process is a key factor in the debate which is already a key part of the article. The "torn apart" fox image should appear in the section on alleged cruelty. MikeHobday 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I wouldn't disagree that the section on cruelty could feature a good picture of an injured or dead fox in principle, but for me, i would want to be satisfied that in additon to meeting all of WPs picture standards (free use etc.) the picture was genuine (which i am not necessarily assured of with the one given) and was appropriately captioned. As i understand it, the presence of a carcass once the hunt has concluded is fairly rare, so it would have to be a very well sourced photo. That said, i still don't think it's imperative as i think anyone reading the article could probably envisage a dead fox. Owain.davies 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
ReplyEqually, they could probably imagine a horse rider in a brightly coloured coat, coat being followed by riders and hounds in the countryside, but there are several photos of that inthe article. Still, I am pleased at your agreement. What level of assurance would you need that a photo was genuine? MikeHobday 09:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove - The intent of including the images is obviously to mislead readers into assuming the "tearing apart" is the method of killing, when in reality the fox is already dead by that time. Read the autopsy reports in the Burns Inquiry. In short, death is generally caused by massive trauma within a few seconds as the animal is "crunched" to death, or, in some cases, the neck is broken (the way a rat terrier kills a rat). It appears to depend on the size differential and the positioning of hound and fox. Either way, it's very quick and doesn't involve being "torn apart". Flatterworld 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Like the Burns post mortem on the fox subject to hunting by a terrier at the Royal Artillery which was found to have multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head, damage to the right eye, bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck? Or the "fox 4" post mortem: "Profound trauma by repeated dog bite. ... It is not possible to determine the time period from first bite to death from this post mortem material"? One such photo out of more than half a dozen does not seem misleading to me. MikeHobday 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply For those not interested in re-reading all the post mortems, suffice it to say the absence of blood in the lungs meant the fox didn't even live long enough to draw another breath - imo that's pretty quick. A multiplicity of bites doesn't mean they happened sequentially and over a long period of time, or even that they happened BEFORE death. As for the terrier issue, is Mike proposing we now include terrier pest control in the fox hunting article? Why not simply retitle the article "any animal killing another animal, particularly in the UK"? imo you're straying quite far afield. Flatterworld 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply Are you saying that foxes hunted by terriers below ground are not being hunted? MikeHobday 08:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply I think we're getting to the heart of the matter here. The article is not named 'All kinds of hunting which Mike Hobday finds cruel and which he's campaigning to make illegal', it's called 'Fox hunting'. Further, most of the Wikipedians here would like to see this title limited to scent hunting (whether or not limited to foxes and/or limited to pack hunting) as it's EXTREMELY confusing to encyclopedia readers, who live in all parts of the world, to be dashing about among all the various topics Mike seems to find related in some way. We are an encyclopedia, not a platform for those with various political aspirations. Terriers are NOT foxhounds. Terriers are NOT scenthounds. Terriers are NOT hounds at all. If Mike would like to write an article about terrier pest control, covering rats and foxes, comparing the cruelty of killing traps, Warfarin (and other poisons his government uses), and so forth to terrier work, he's welcome to do so. Just not in this article. In reading through past discussions, it appears Mike's goal is to undo the efforts of previous editors who separated this article into such articles as the one about Legislation. Wikipedia does NOT need this article to become some sort of general dumping ground. Flatterworld 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply Leaving aside the personalities, the article is not called "fox hunting with hounds", it is called "fox hunting". Are you saying that foxes hunted by terriers below ground are not being hunted? MikeHobday 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply I think it might be worth considering changing the title of the article to "British Fox-hunting" precisely to prevent this kind of confusion. In British sporting usage, "Hunting" is done with hounds. It is not "Shooting" which is completely different. A fox that is chased with hounds is hunted. A Fox that is shot is not hunted, it is shot. (Fox-hunters have historically despised fox-shooters.) Digging out foxes with terriers is Terrierwork.David A. Flory 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply Terriers are intrinsic to fox hunting in Britain and should not be separated from the article. I think the similarities between British and US hunting are sufficient to merit an interesting comparison in the same article. I agree with you that fox shooting should be in a seprate article, whether or not called Vulpicide! MikeHobday 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove - As per Talk, I don't think the images serve any encyclopedic purpose --TFoxton 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As per Owain Davies, above, I suggest that the dead fox photo at [1] be added to the Animal welfare and animal rights section with the caption, "Imagery of dead foxes played a significant role in highlighting accusations of cruelty in fox hunting." My view is that a photo, from an organisation with several professional hunt monitors is likely to be well sourced. MikeHobday (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think their photos are the least likely to be neutral, and monitors have in the past been accused of faking or posing photos (whether true or not). As I said, its not the principle of the photo I object to, and your suggestion of mentioned that it has been used for PR purposes is sensible enough, but I still have major concern over whether such photos are genuine. I think the only way to assure that is to use one which shows the actual kill or the hounds as well as the fox. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure any independent person has accused them of faking photos. Are you suggesting they killed the fox themselves, or that they found a fox nd ripped its guts out? MikeHobday (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting either thing, but they could just have found a fox already eviscerated by any one of a number of carnivorous scavengers, not necessarily anything to do with a hound or any other sort of dog. What I believe or you believe isn't really relevant in either case, as it is all to do with whether it can be proven either way. You can clearly see post mortem rigor in the fox, so its been dead for some time, and anything could have been picking at it. This is why sourcing a suitable image will be of great difficulty, and I don't believe that organisations such as the league are reliable sources, as they have a vested interest in showing shocking pictures, and that is the sort of interest which leads people to embellish a picture in some way. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that accusations of embellishment without reliable sourcing need not be regarded too seriously. Back to the main point, there is no evidence that the specific fox or coyote pictured in the article were hunted, yet they can be included because they have a suitable caption. So does this, even under your unlikely scenario. MikeHobday (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
At the minute, your caption fails WP:NOR. Find some back up for the statement that it had a major effect or even was widely used, or it will have to go again. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, wouldn't have added that caption if you'd expressed such a concern. Is the new one better? Trust the reference is OK for you. MikeHobday (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second vote, on revised placement and wording

Imagery of dead foxes were widely used to highlight accusations of cruelty in fox hunting
Imagery of dead foxes were widely used to highlight accusations of cruelty in fox hunting

Remove. Photographs of dead animals are not suitable for an encyclopedia, unless maybe the entry is "Dead Animals." We can describe the existing controversy without adding gratuitous gore meant to incite more controversy. --AeronM (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove - the carcass looks nothing like the kill of a pack of carnivores; it looks like roadkill. --Una Smith (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Help me to judge. What does "the kill of a pack of carnivores" look like? BTW, the caption does not say how the fox was killed, whether by a pack of carnivores or not." MikeHobday (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment There is no blood on the grass, indicating it wasn't killed where its lying. Without any other convincing evidence, help us to judge why it should be used to illustrate the article especially since, as you say the caption does not say how the fox was killed, so how do you know it was killed during fox hunting or not? Bugguyak (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no such proof. Hence I have accepted that the article should not claim that this fox was killed by hunting, although I personally trust the organisation concerned. This is why I suggested the caption and, on request, inserted a source to demonstrate that the caption was true. MikeHobday (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove - inappropriate for this site, keep it on the IFAW site, if people want to see it they can look there. Plus, if the fox was not killed by carnivores, why is it here in the first place? --TFoxton (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - As before, there are a large number (too many) "picture postcard" photos of hunts, as if the activity was universally bland, pretty and uncontentious. To delete the single image that suggests a degree of controversy about the activity is to engage in the most blatant POV pushing. There is no reason not to believe that the description of the image, that of a kill by hounds, is accurate, but even if it is not, it is most clearly what the caption says it is, namely an example of the publicity verifiably used in the debate over fox hunting. I guess it depends whether the purpose of the article is to be a nice photo album, or is it is still desired to make it a featured article candidate. MikeHobday (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
MikeHobday, I believe you have voted twice. --AeronM (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find the votes were in separate issues. I have belatedly inserted a header to show this. Hope that's OK. Doesn't affect the apparent vote anyway. MikeHobday (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep Simply because Wikipedia is not censored [2] and you have the option not to see an image on Wikipedia [3] Bugguyak (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I checked out a few other articles with controversial subjects, and "shock photos" were not allowed (see abortion for example). I believe the same principle applies here. --AeronM (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


It looks like it may be necessary to file an RfC as it does not appear we are going to reach a consensus on this one. In the mean time, per Wikipedia:Image use policy (specifically "Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article.") I am removing the photo. --AeronM (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reinserted pending either consensus or RfC. How is a dead fox shocking? Surely death is natural? MikeHobday (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Mike. Photo stays out until there is a consensus to add, per wiki policy, and as quoted above. --AeronM (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Advice sought here, will not reinstate picture if policy is interpreted as you say. MikeHobday (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree the image should stay out until it's clear that it should be included. For what it's worth, I don't see any value of adding the image. Do I need to see a dead fox to understand how it applies? Not really. Unless the image is explicitly one that was used in promotion against fox hunting by an organization, it just seems to be a picture of a dead fox that doesn't help. You may seek more opinions at the village pump or WP:3O or try the WP:DR as a last resort. MECU≈talk 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see the image as gory. But the caption could be more descriptive. Which anti-hunting group used it? How did they describe the image? The image source link[4] doesn't have the image and I can't find the original image on the site.--Dodo bird (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to accept that the image was once on the IFAW site - because Wikimedia OTRS has accepted that IFAW uploaded the image[5]. Unfortunately, more information does not seem to be available. Hence note that the claim in the caption is more limited. MikeHobday (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA application

It is my intention to soon list this article for consideration as a featured article, as I believe it meets the criteria quite well. Does anyone have any comments on the page before I list it. Sadly, it seems that Peer Review is largely ignored now, so I think it will have to go straight to FA.

Comments welcome. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree this is a good idea. Whether article passes or fails (and I incline towards support), this will improve it. MikeHobday (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for a FAC review. Apparently, it has not been nominated for a GA review. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't have time to address everything in the FA review. Can others join in? MikeHobday (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can't get FA, try for Good Article status. It's a vigorous review too. And somewhat easier. I call it the REAL peer review. Montanabw(talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'll try to find time to address some of my concerns too (ducks) I know I'm picky!Ealdgyth | Talk 23:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with the article is that it's kind of choppy and still in need of some organization. It is thorough in places, but then real sparse in others. I think there is a place for a discussion of the traditional roots of hunt attire and a comparison to modern traditions (use of safety helmets, colors and fabrics, etc.) I think it is a worthy project and worth continued effort! Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. The FAC is archived here. --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been closed very early, I believe that we have addressed all the main problems raised, so feel we should go for a quick resubmission. Anyone think differently? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it needs quite a bit more work. The lead isn't brilliant, and the last sentence is awkward. The flow throughout is choppy, and I'd say it needs a section on the Burns Inquiry. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Share concerns. A second failure in quick succession would be very bad news. Let's get the article right, including a full copyedit, get it stable and then resubmit. Is everything from the review at [6] completed? I'm not at all sure it is. MikeHobday (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And this [7] seems good advice. MikeHobday (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Not all issues from the review here have been addressed. Eg, the bit about hunts putting down their retiring hounds; that's not a fact, that's a complaint by an anti-hunting group re some hunts. There are foxhound retirement placement groups, just as for greyhounds. What about breeding programs? Do they breed from proven lines or do they breed from proven hounds, hounds that were outstanding in actual hunts? Kinda hard to write a truly first rate encyclopedic article about fox hunting, if none of the editors involved are experienced fox hunters. KWIM? --Una Smith (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably using the same techniques as the editors who wrote History of Lithuania (1219–1295) without being 700 years old? In any event, judge the text, not the author. I have amended the phrasing about hounds being put down to demonstrate that the information came from the hunts, not from anti-hunting groups. MikeHobday (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
MikeHobday misunderstands me. I do not judge the author; I note that the text addresses a particular case, not fox hunting hounds in general. Here's an analogy: some houses are disposed of by arson, but arson is not the usual way we dispose of houses. --Una Smith (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, I do not understand your concern. The source cited in the article says that UK fox hunts in the MFHA themselves say that they kill about 3,000 foxhounds per year. It is clear that "humane dispatch" is indeed the usual method of disposal of hounds amongst UK foxhunts. MikeHobday (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I read the sources and this was not clear to me. (See below). --AeronM (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fate of hounds

It is POV to mention only one of several normal fates of hounds after their fox hunting days. It is POV regardless of which fate(s) are mentioned and which are omitted. Let's have some facts, please, from reliable, verified sources. How many hounds are retired per year, and where do they go? Euthanasia (and then? renderer? cremation? burial? fed to other hounds?), breeding programs, retirement homes, others? Lets do some research, get some facts, and leave emotions at the door. --Una Smith (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read the source,[8] have you? For UK fox hunts, it is not disputed by anyone that euthanasia is the predominant fate of foxhounds. The other source cited, [9] is both reliable and neutral. No emotions are in play here, just cold hard facts. MikeHobday (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Here in good ole Middleburg, home of the 'most hunts in a contiguous area' (12), many of our retired hounds are adopted by people, both hunt members and non. In California, many of our retired hounds were also adopted out. --AeronM (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read the above source. It says the number of hounds removed from packs is essentially equal to the number that enter. Approximately 3000 enter per year. However, the above source also says "there is no record kept of the number of hounds put down each year" and that hounds "are removed from the pack for different reasons" and enumerates some reasons. Not all of those reasons involve humane dispatch and not all humane dispatches are for human convenience. Of the hounds removed from packs each year, how many are given other jobs, retired as pets, killed for (or die from) medical reasons, and killed for convenience? I found section 4 of the source, "How many are re-homed?", very interesting. --Una Smith (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The fell packs, cited as an exception to humane despatch, amount to six hunts, and their hounds are 420 compared to 11,766 for the MFHA. And that figure of 3,000 does not allow for the over 6,000 hounds in other packs. Accepting Fanshawe's estimate of 1 in 4-5 as surplus to requirements each year, that is another 1,400 hounds that go somewhere. The Burns Inquiry summary seems the best conclusion:
6.79 It is a common, but not universal, practice for hounds belonging to the registered packs to be put down after some six or seven years’ hunting, when they are considered to have reached the end of their working lives. The Countryside Alliance estimated that the MFHA packs put down about 3,000 hounds a year in this way.[433] The Countryside Alliance and the MFHA explained to us that this was necessary in most cases because hounds were not domesticated animals; and that it would be unfair to subject them to the more constrained and solitary life of a pet dog.[434] In some cases, however, especially with hounds belonging to the Fell Packs, the hounds retire to live with the families who "walked" them as puppies and who have often continued to look after them during the summer breaks.
6.80 The anti-hunting organisations tend to argue that it is unnecessary to put hounds down in this way. They also argue that hunts breed too many dogs and are too ready to put them down if they are not thought suitable for some reason.[435]
If you want to add more information to the article based on this, do go ahead, but my point is that the 3,000 figure is notable and reliable. MikeHobday (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't dispute that number; I dispute the appropriateness of leaving out "the rest of the story" (Blind Men and an Elephant). --Una Smith (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. What verifiable source do you have that there is any more to the story? MikeHobday (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence for the time being for two reasons: 1) I read the references and found that the number (3,000) was suggested but was then lowered allowing for other 'fates,' and 2) the information was from the UK and does not reflect US practices in general. The information did not appear precise enough to be included here. We can do better. --AeronM (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find some verifiable US information? MikeHobday (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would reiterate what Una Smith said above; the fact that the first section of the cited source says "There is no record kept of the number of hounds put down each year," already throws some doubt as to the accuracy of the '3000' number. It goes on to say that "the figure is speculative," and also "During any one year some losses will occur through injuries and ill health." Clearly then, the sentence in the article ("Anti-hunting campaigners also criticise UK hunts who put down around 3,000 hounds after their working life has come to an end, at the age of about eight years.") is not accurate. I have removed it until such time as something better can be contributed. --AeronM (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's another hunting source saying it is routine: "Hounds are humanely put down when they cease to have any quality of life." [10]. MikeHobday (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the position. Burns says MFHA hunts put down 3,000 per year. This source [11] are the UK hare hunts saying they put down an additional 900 hounds per year, suggetsing around 4,000 is the right figure. I will reinstate. MikeHobday (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unregistered farmers packs

I recently removed this information about there being unregistered, as well as registered packs from the article, principally because despite extensive searching I can't find a reference, and it is the nature of unregulated entities not to have reliable sources. It has been reinserted, but I am having trouble seeing how this will meet WP:V in the future.

Their existence is inferred in articles by the master of foxhounds association of the US, as this gives the benefits of being a member, but never explicitly mentions it.

I suggest, that unless anyone has a good idea about where to find a source that isn't a blog or forum, we are going to have to remove the information.

All suggestion welcome, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted it because, if true, it is highly relevant. Indeed, the question as to whether fox hunting takes place in America outside of registered packs (i.e. as in the UK) seems a key issue for an article which we are hoping to move to featured article status. Were it not for this latter point, I would be happy to see the sentence deleted. MikeHobday (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the value of the point it makes, but if it can't meet WP:V it can't stay. I'll happily give it a couple of weeks for a source to be found (and i'll look too), but if one can't be found, i think it will have to go. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tweaked the wording and added a ref. --AeronM (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burns Inquiry issues

I tend to agree with the suggestion, made somewhere recently, that the Burns Inquiry should have a separate section. I probably think we need to revisit the order of sections of the article at the moment, not least because we are currently referencing the inquiry before it has been explained, which does not make sense. Finally, in the light of this source, [12], referencing a Guardian article which I cannot find (perhaps Guardian archives do not go back to 2000?), I think that the references to the status of individual Burns Inquiry memebrs is overblown to the point of POV. MikeHobday (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your own organisation's viewpoint is hardly a reliable source. You have placed much emphasis on the Burns Inquiry as a correct and verifiable source, so the opinion of its chairman and other leading member, neither with a particular political bias (hence their choice for the panel) seems highly relevant. It is no secret that official government policy and these members of the inquiry board (both very senior government advisors), along with the lords favoured the 'middle way' option, and were outvoted by the house of commons and subsequent use of the parliament act. There is a lot more I could put in here which would verge on POV (e.g. the first instance of use of the parliament act against the wish of the prime minister), but I have refrained from doing so. I think you need to accept that it was not a clear cut decision by the politicians, but it did in the end go against hunting, with no sign of a change in the near future, and avoid trying to write the history in a rosy light.
I'm not sure the Burns Inquiry warrants its own section in this article, but I would support it having its own article, with a main article or see also tag on the page.
Done, as you can see, at Burns Inquiry. Do have a look and see how you can improve it. MikeHobday (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Lastly, there is no problem with using the article as a reference before it is mentioned. The first mention of the inquiry I can see in the in the Current Status#UK section, where it mentions that there was an offical inquiry, chaired by Lord Burns. The #1 Reference is supportive of other facts, so not in conflict IMHO.
Regards OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Just on the ad hominem point, the League is not "my" organisation, and I am no longer an employee. If I have cited it as a source, other than in express terms of giving its opinions or discussing its actions, I hope you will review the appropriateness of that.
Back to the main point, I have never thought that political background is the key issue with respect to a politician's views of hunting as an animal welfare issue, and hence I disagree with your suggestion that individual's political background is the key indicator of potential bias. Lord Soulsby, of course, is a Conservative politician[13] but that is less relevant than the concerns raised at [14]. My point is that it is hardly greatly significant, under the circumstances, that Lord Soulsby supported hunting. Even were it so, to solely refer to him as an eminent vet (which he certainly is) and not as someone who had undertaken work for the hunting movement (or in your terms, as a Conservative politician) seems POV. My suggestion is that the Soulsby reference is removed from the article. MikeHobday (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I only say 'your' organisation, as its the first line of your user page "Mike Hobday undertakes work for the League against Cruel Sport", so not really an assumption as much as you telling the world. In either case I take your point about political views not being the be all of voting patterns (Ann Widecombe being a good example), but it is a reasonably good predictor, as is social class (and the two being fairly intertwined). I am happy to use a wording which mentions the views of several of the panel, with the emphasis on Lord Burns, but i'm not convinced that mentioning that members of the independent panel were not in favour of a ban is POV. I would rather keep it in, with an opposing sentence of those panel members who came out in favour of an outright ban. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that I reveal potential COI interests (in this case consultancy) should not detract from the fact that my views are my own, and should be criticised as such. On Burns/Soulsby, my understanding is that no other member has commented, so my preferences would be (1) list Burns only and (2) list bioth but with teh Guardian caveat to Soulsby. MikeHobday (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Happy with option 2, although it definitely needs the primary source. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals

A minor point, hence merely Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Institutions. MikeHobday (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it that means you agree? "HM Government", but "the government said..." OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought MOS backed me up, but let's leave it till the experts at FA review see it. MikeHobday (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the wikilinking.  : - ) OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

how did foxes surve during the big fox hunting era if any one has any info i have a school prject any help would be much appreshated. many fanks from confused nerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.134.212 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy sections

There are way too many sections describing the controversies.... More space is dedicated to the controversy here than on the abortion page! We need to consolidate; explain the controversy and keep it simple. It starts to read like an animal rights blog by the end. --AeronM (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so its up to us to be WP:Bold and edit. Don't expect wikipedia to give equal time to both sides of any controversy. This 'encyclopedia' is rampant with bias. Many of the contributing editors to this and other hunting related articles are self confessed animal rightists that blatantly change every article they edit to reflect their single view point. What we need to do is monitor their contributions for NPOV and fix their edits when we see this kind of activity. Bugguyak (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the controversy section has too many sections. Having rewritten a large amount of it, I have been very careful to stick to NPOV and citeable facts. The recent FA review had no-one mention NPOV as a problem, and they tend to be quite pedantic!
The simple fact is that there is a lot of controversy around fox hunting, with many different arguments employed. It would detrimental to simply remove the arguments for the sake of brevity.
I absolutely agree that we need to stop there being an animal rights/welfare bias on the page, and if you don't like it now, you should look at the version 6 months ago! That said, on a rough tally of regular editors (of the last 6 months), I would stick my neck out and say that more of us are pro than anti. That said, feel free to edit, but I would counsel against removing whole arguments, especially where they are sourced and cited. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"more of us are pro than anti"? 1. [15]. 2. How about debating content, not personalities? MikeHobday (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not debating personalities, just pointing out that it is not necessarily an "animal rights blog" as had been asserted. The inference in the above posts was the page was solely edited by those with an animal rights view, and i'm stating an opinion that I generally see more pro sentiment than anti. I think that NPOV is actually pretty good on this page. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What does personality have to do with it? You may be the nicest person or a big jerk. I don't know, but I do know that there are anti-hunting advocates and pro-hunt advocates. We know who we are. What I am saying is that some of us have an obvious agenda and it shows in our edits and that is rank POV.Bugguyak (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to consolidate the controversy sections into one section, giving a brief (two or three sentence) description of each point. I've helped edit numerous controversial topics, and this seems to be the best solution. Being pro or anti doesn't really matter, as long as it's NPOV.... that said, just because something is cited and verifiable does not mean it belongs in the article. We can always add "For more information" links for people who want to learn more about the controversy. As it stands now, roughly half of this article is devoted to the controversies. I'd like to see it reduced to about 5 - 10% of the article. IF absolutely necessary, we can split off a "Fox hunting controversy" page (like what was done with Water Fluoridation). --AeronM (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Split the article, however remove all but the redirect and the briefest of descriptions of the entire point. Bugguyak (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind, if we split off an article, it could be subject to an RfD under Wikipedia:Content forking. Also, the article that we split off will still have to be NPOV even while it describes the controversies. --AeronM (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I disagree that the article should be split. Fox hunting is, regardless of your opinion or position, inherently linked to controversy. It makes more sense, and follows a logical order to be in a single article. Also, what I have seen on this and other articles, is that there is a perverse side effect to removing detailed argument, which is that people constantly reinsert it, often in a poorly written or uncited way. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying that we should keep the six miles of controversy sections to avoid having poorly-written contributions added? This is not a logical argument. Also, I would venture that the abortion page was one of the most controversial on wikipedia. If they can streamline, so can we. --AeronM (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Owain's various arguments that you did not comment on. With regard to his one argument that you did refer to, I note that the abortion article has a considerable section called 'social issues' which is effectively the controversy section part B under a different name. If you had a constructive idea about how to split this article along similar lines, I'd be interested to read it, though I'm unconvinced as yet. MikeHobday (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When Foxes grow up

Owain has added that young foxes "are full size by autumn season as they are born in spring" using what looks like a pro-hunt source. I wonder if this is insufficiently nuanced? The academic source already quoted, [16] says "Mother and pups remain together until the autumn after the birth. Sexual maturity is reached by 10 months." In either case, I am not sure that this implies the degree of maturity that "full size" implies. Especially as autumn hunting sometimes starts in August, well before the Autumn. If the implication is that the foxes are no longer dependent cubs but are fully independent in their own right, that may not be true. If the claim is merely one about body length, I am not sure this is relevant. MikeHobday (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike there does not appear to be anything wrong with the statement. Even the academic source you provide does not contradict it. Merely because it "looks like a pro-hunt" source does not invalidate its accuracy. The article is about fox hunting, there is nothing wrong with having a source that actually might be pertinent for a change. The section is about hunting immature fox, not about hunting small fox, since as you state maturity does not imply full size in that a young fox can appear full sized. Bugguyak (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I deliberately added this to avoid the inherent POV in statements regarding killing young animals. People almost always react more strongly to statements regarding killing of young animals (kittens, puppies etc.), so I felt it was a relevant point to add. A lot of anti hunt like to use the fact that this is 'young' to try and gain support, but the truth is, by the time they are hunted, they are usually independent, or very close to it. The source may be inherently pro, but most actual books on the subject are. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This is my point. The academic source implies to me more "close to it" than "independent." The article implies the opposite. Had I felt the statement wrong, I would have reverted. Because I think the nuance is wrong, I am discussing here. MikeHobday (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What nuance is wrong here? I don't see where either article implies that helpless or dependent young are hunted for sport. You are the only one making that implication.Bugguyak (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The University article cited above suggests that foxes hunted during at leats the first part of autumn/cub hunting are neither sexually mature nor sufficiently independent to live apart from their family group. By saying that such foxes are full grown, the article currntly implies the opposite. Perhaps easier if I edit the article. Change it again if you think I'm getting it wrong. MikeHobday (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
To be accurate one would have to give all the information about sexual maturity the university article cites: "pups leave the den 4 or 5 weeks after birth and are fully weaned by 8 to 10 weeks. Mother and pups remain together until the autumn after the birth. Sexual maturity is reached by 10 months." POV interpretations of implied nuances have no place in the article. Why don't you just come out and say what you think the passage implies? Bugguyak (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Genuinely, I thought I had. The article implied foxes were fully mature, the academic source implies they are not. How can I clarify my words better? MikeHobday (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ratcatcher

I don't have a source for this - but I thought 'ratcatcher' was a tweed jacket and cloth cap and that the black coat is called 'black coat'. In the UK anyway. [17]Fainites barley 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)