Talk:Western Shield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Western Shield is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] earlier comments
Hello all Western Shield fans, thanks for having look at this article, if you ant to make any improvements go ahead, thanks.
Could do with some paragraphs/ sub headings I dont have the experience to do it myself. It would make the article more readable.
Michael Williams - you can't sign articles as articles are collabritive efforts, ie others can edit, add to it, or even delete (as has already happened with this article). However if you log in your contributions will be recorded on the history page. BTW thanks for starting this article off and your continued contributions. Western Shield is a very important program, and deserves an article in Wikipedia. --Michael Johnson 04:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
If anyone happens to stumble upon a useable source for something along that line, please put it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunus (talk • contribs) 4 April 2007
- What sort of criticism are you looking for? AFAIK Western Shield has been an outstanding success in bringing a number of species back from the edge of extinction. In that regard it is a shining light in what otherwise is a very distressing world view of species endangerment and extinction. --Michael Johnson 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Something like 'killing animals for the mere sake of preserving species is unnecessary'. That's bound to have been said by at least some people, though I'd guess in a less calm manner. --Lunus 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it has been said then I've never heard it, although I have heard similar things said in other contexts. Nevertheless, you would need a specific quote or statement about Western Shield for it to be even relevant for this article. --Michael Johnson 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know, hence the editing-comment and note on the discussion page. --Lunus 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- In that case why are you fishing for something that probably doesn't exist? At best you will get a comment from the extreme wing of the animal liberation movement that has no relevance to how effective the program is at saving endangered species. Can't see what the point is. --Michael Johnson 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is about what I expected to find, actually. I doubt there's any significant criticism regarding the efficiency of that program, but as I said, most likely quite a few questioning it's sense. --Lunus 00:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- In that case why are you fishing for something that probably doesn't exist? At best you will get a comment from the extreme wing of the animal liberation movement that has no relevance to how effective the program is at saving endangered species. Can't see what the point is. --Michael Johnson 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know, hence the editing-comment and note on the discussion page. --Lunus 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it has been said then I've never heard it, although I have heard similar things said in other contexts. Nevertheless, you would need a specific quote or statement about Western Shield for it to be even relevant for this article. --Michael Johnson 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Something like 'killing animals for the mere sake of preserving species is unnecessary'. That's bound to have been said by at least some people, though I'd guess in a less calm manner. --Lunus 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- As a western australian who has seen the positive effects of the program I find the above conversation weird - if you want a fox rather than native marsupials - try some other article not --Michael Johnson 01:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)this one! SatuSuro 00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt this is the right place for a discussion like this, but anyway: Why should the native species be preserved? Just because they've 'been there first'? Is that worth the expense? And no, I'm not just talking about the money there. --Lunus 00:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a western australian who has seen the positive effects of the program I find the above conversation weird - if you want a fox rather than native marsupials - try some other article not --Michael Johnson 01:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)this one! SatuSuro 00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I can hardly believe this comment. You are quite happy for species that are found nowhere else in the world to disappear? Most probably you are happy for all natural environments to disappear. Very weird attitude I find impossible to understand. --Michael Johnson 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) And if you are not talking about money what expence are you talking about? --Michael Johnson 01:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Quite happy doesn't really hit it. I simply don't really care about what happens to species, as long as their place can be filled by another one/their niche is vanishing anyway - which applies to about all cases of extinction. Where's the problem in such cases?
- Well, what might that be. Last time I checked, animals where quite capable of perceiving pain, so maybe it could be possible to call that an expense. No problem if there's an actual use involved, like, gathering food. But just to preserve a certain snapshot of nature's history? That does remind me of something, but I doubt an analogy like that would help the discussion. --Lunus 01:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well you may be happy for species to become extinct, and good luck to you. Apparently you feel no responsibility to other species, to mitigate against the effect humans have on the threatening process. But the fact is these species thrive if fox numbers are reduced. So apparently you are quite happy for a bettong to be ripped apart by a fox, but, gee, lets make sure foxes don't suffer. And your analogy regarding food is a moot point. At what point do you contain your activities to prevent suffering? Everything you possess, every item of clothing, every ounce of food, your house, the roads you drive on, or the railways and busses you use, everything is obtained on the back of suffering of thousands of animals, even if it is just denying space for them to live in. --Michael Johnson 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't see any reason for trying to somehow revert the effect mankind has on the rest of nature's development.
- And the other way round the fox dies - the difference lies in the purpose. The fox benefits from killing the animal, the human in this case does not. There's nothing gained, for the suffering there's no pleasure derived. That is: None, that could not be gained without it. --Lunus 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well you may be happy for species to become extinct, and good luck to you. Apparently you feel no responsibility to other species, to mitigate against the effect humans have on the threatening process. But the fact is these species thrive if fox numbers are reduced. So apparently you are quite happy for a bettong to be ripped apart by a fox, but, gee, lets make sure foxes don't suffer. And your analogy regarding food is a moot point. At what point do you contain your activities to prevent suffering? Everything you possess, every item of clothing, every ounce of food, your house, the roads you drive on, or the railways and busses you use, everything is obtained on the back of suffering of thousands of animals, even if it is just denying space for them to live in. --Michael Johnson 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I put the talk page header there for a reason - please take this discussion somewhere else!!!! SatuSuro 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UT
- I'm finished. --Michael Johnson 01:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise. --Lunus 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I put the talk page header there for a reason - please take this discussion somewhere else!!!! SatuSuro 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UT
[edit] latest edit
An anon editor added text that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. I removed it. User:Kemiv immediately reverted my edit, twice. Would Kemiv please justify this text on the talk page? --Michael Johnson 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
