Talk:Fox hunting/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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. [1]. 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)


I changed "long" to "recently" in the first line. Ten years of controversy is not LONG considering the 500 years Fox-Hunting has existed. HowesR1 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Crupper

Does horse tack used in fox hunting ever include a crupper? Please respond on Talk:Crupper. --Una Smith (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever? Sure, but it is very uncommon and not worth mentioning. You might see one on a fat kid's pony that otherwise has trouble with saddle stability, but rarely on horses. Tangledweb (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A crupper keeps the saddle from sliding forward just as a breast collar keeps it from sliding backwards. In the 1800s horses tend to be bred downhill (hind legs longer than the front or larger butt muscles) and cruppers were more common. Today's horses tend to be level or uphill (longer legs in front - requiring a breast collar on some).HowesR1 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin

" Fox hunting originated in the United Kingdom in the 16th century" it is a motif in Gawayne and the Greene Knight. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Banned in Scotland in 2002

The article says for hunting was banned imn the UK in 2004, It was not It was banned in England and Wales in 2004. Scotland in 2002 and not in Northern Ireland. What English centric type is writing this article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1819189.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costaricavacations (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gone to ground?

The article assumes the reader is familiar with the term "gone to ground" and uses it three times. There is, however, no hint of what it means. As a reader coming to this article because I've heard of, but am unfamiliar with, fox hunting, it seems a rather baffling term, since it seems to imply the fox does not run along the ground all the time, but may sometimes go into the trees or something, which I don't think a fox is even able to do.

190.74.105.118 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've included an explanation following what appears to be the first use of the term. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Trespass

I have removed "frequently" from the trespass section. The reference cited for this is simply a collection of laws related to hunting on the Hunt Sab website. The reference does not mention how often trespassing might occur, so frequently is clearly not referenced and is POV. I have removed other offences that hunt saboteurs may be guilty of since this section is about trespassing, not hypothetical other offences that these people may have committed. These other possible offenses could be included in other sections. Bob98133 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm usually an advocate for removal of excess adjectives and adverbs of whatever type. Usually said words inject unnecessary POV where none is needed. Absent hard statistics and the ability of sources to meet the strict adherence to WP:V that is usually necessary when dealing with controversial topics, I'd say it's the best approach. It occurs, but we don't have hard numbers, and even if we did, define "frequently." IMHO, that it occurs is all that can be said. I agree with you. Montanabw(talk) 21:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The recent changes to this section have not been supported by the references. Stating that because the hunts take place on private land that hunt sabs always/frequently trespass is nonsense. They have been known to fly helicopters over the hunt and sab the hunt without trespassing; or made excessive noise on public property to scare animals. Stating some reason that a hunt sab web site prints copies of the the legal code is pure speculation. Are we to assume that the Congressional Record publishes text of legislation because people are likely to break the law? What recent editors have been adding might logically follow, and may well be true, but the cited refs don't support the text. Bob98133 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
All I did was copyedit what's there, I have no horse in this race or dog in the fight (in Montana, our "foxhunters" chase coyotes, and the ranchers are glad to see 'em go! LOL!), so I'll just step aside and let you guys sort out the content. But if you want a more-or-less neutral eye to copyedit, you know where to find me. ;-) Montanabw(talk) 02:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I was surprised to see your mass removal of citations here - especially from some very reliable sources, and I think Montanabw's last copyedited version was looking good for neutrality. Firstly, the refs given clearly demonstrate that sabbing involves trespass (without judgement as to criminal or civil) - "Hunt sabotage involves trespass, even when conducted from footpaths or other public rights of way" (Stokes) and also that a law was introduced specifically for this reason. You do raise the point of the use of helicopters, but this is very limited (and I believe was a a single intance of a gyrocopter which is no longer used due to the injuries previously caused after scaring the horses, and the resultant compensation claims) so I think that 'usually' would be ok. I also think that shis may fall under "Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true.". I don't think that either hunters or sabs would disagree that trespass takes place, only as to whether it was civil or criminal. As for the HSA website, i'm sure it used to be a lot more explicit in its reasoning when it was originally cited (hence the specific text claim), so i might look it up in a web archive when I get some time to see if i can find the original. And as for the congressional record - yes, that is exactly why they publish it, as people need to know what it is! Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 05:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor Owen.davies - I do not believe that [2] the Free The Beagles website is a reliable source to claim that "the criminal offence of 'aggravated trespass' was introduced in 1994 specifically to address the problems caused to fox hunts." This is the website produced by advocates or hunt sabs who would of course feel this way, but without a reliable reference, I believe that my removal of this bogus ref was warranted. The info may be true, but a reliable ref is required.

The text " For this reason, the hunt saboteur tactics manual presents detailed information on legal issues affecting this activity, especially the Criminal Justice Act." is OR and POV, unless that website specifically states that this is the reason for inclusion. For the most part, this web site explains the law, but offers no reason for doing so other than information. It is POV and OR to claim a reason for the inclusion of this material without a ref.

Your statement that "The construction of the law means that hunt saboteurs' behavior may result in charges of criminal aggravated trespass" is ridiculous. The law might do this for hunt sabs (as well as mass trespass, raves, and squatters) but the actual construction of the law doesn't mean anything. This is sloppy and discounts other targets of this legislation.

I am not arguing that what you are saying is untrue, just that the refs used, and the interpretation of their content, is POV; while the concutions are OR. There must be some reliable refs to support this. Bob98133 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Gents, my thinking here is to just find better sources; surely Parliament has public records of the legislative history of the act, and maybe the actual statutory language has a preamble or statement of intent that might help. When you two can agree on general principles as to what can be stated and sourced, (you both seem like good editors and generally sensible sorts) let me know if you want another copyedit to make whatever is there cleaner. As I said, I don't have a real stake in this one, but I HAVE been balancing the rodeo articles for several years when there have been periodic invasions from strong POV pushers, so I like to flatter myself into thinking that I can wordsmith pretty well. (That said, I haven't the motivation to research this myself, and 'twould take a braver soul than I to tackle the mess at horse slaughter! ) Montanabw(talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Current ref#119 - Stokes, Elizabeth (1996). Hunting and Hunt Saboteurs: A Censure Study - presents a fairly well sourced overview of the trespass issue. It does not support the statements currently in the article about trespass, attributed to HSA, but otherwise unreferenced. It clarifies that aggravated trespass can occur from public property. This seems like a far better ref than HSA, which could be used to reference the opinion or POV of that organization, but is not valid for referencing why legislation was enacted or other such.Bob98133 (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
And indeed, the Stokes ref is right there relating to trepass being common. As for for why it was enacted, that is clearly shown in the Crown Prosecution Service ref (119) and as they are the public prosecutor, refs don't get much better than that IMHO. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's where I have a problem with your edits claiming that trespass is common, frequent, etc. The word trespass is mentioned 33 times in that reference, but it never once states that trespass is frequent or common. Just because this ref discusses trespass at length does not mean that trespass is common or frequent - coming to that conclusion is OR. In fact, trespass may be common, but the supplied reference does not state this. The ref discusses many of the problems involving the hunt sabs, but I do not believe that the ref states that this is the reason for which the law was enacted, so claiming that is also OR. Another reference to support those claims would be needed to support the statements you claim the Stokes ref makes. If you disagree, can you please cite the specific text in the Stokes refs to support both of your positions? Bob98133 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
"Hunt sabotage involves trespass, even when conducted from footpaths or other public rights of way" (Stokes)
I'd say that is fairly unambiguous. The two things are linked, and is it says, hunt sabotage involves trespass, and as stated in that way, not sometimes, not even frequently, but as the norm. And as for the reason for enactment, did you not read my comment above about the CPS link? Apparently not. To remove doubt it states: "Part V Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) Sections 61-80 conferred additional powers on the police and created new offences in connection with various forms of trespass, including... trespass by hunt saboteurs". The statement is therefore well referenced, unless i'm missing something. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue?

The controversey section seems decidedly one-sided. As the saying goes, "I don't have a dog in this hunt" (sorry , coudln't resist). I can see both sides of the debate, as I value cultural traditions, but also have qualms regarding the nature of the hunt. So, I'm not trying to advocate one side or another. However, the controversy section seems as if it was written almost entirely from a decidedly POV, apologist point of view favoring the hunt. I don't mean to offend. It really does come off as one-sided to the casual observer in terms of how things are framed, the language that is used, and the weight given certain opinions. I know this is an emotional issue for people on either side of the debate, but this current state of affairs is not NPOV. Both sides of the controversey need to be represented, and done so fairly, without rhetorical straw men and slant. Jbower47 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's quite a broad statement for a big section. I think you might need to be a bit more specific about where you feel the bias lies. As you can see above and in the talk archive, there has been extensive crafting of this section to try and maintain NPOV with key arguments from both sides presented and most importantly reliably cited. I have re-read it to check, and i can see the balance view to both arguments presented all the way down. Can you give some specific examples? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? This article contains massive bias toward somehow saying that all people who are in favor of human rights laws in Britain to enjoy a tradition in which no animals are harmed, are somehow fat smrmy upper-class grease-balls. I think that user is a sock.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, so if i read your post right, you think this is POV in favour of the 'anti' side? Whereas the original complaint by Jbower was about a POV slant to the 'pro'. And you think i'm a sock. If you're going to make accusations, it would be nice if you checked a user's history first. On another note, i've reverted the edits you made to the article, as you made some definite statements to replace a cited source, without any alternative, and asked for a citation, immediately next to a reference. This article will always be controversial, so we need to stick to cited information. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Birds of Prey

Anyone got more up to date material about this? The refs are 2006/2007 and mentions it was going to be tested in law via LACS.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Countries involved in fox hunting

There was at least one country listed that should not have been there. New Zealand does not have foxes or anything similar, so there is no way that fox hunting could happen in New Zealand. I followed the reference link and found a table listing teams of hounds (including draghounds) in various countries. Draghunting is not fox hunting. There are no foxes in New Zealand. I have removed this information, but there may be similar issues with other countries. If anyone knows about the fauna of listed countries, please take a minute to think about whether fox hunting is possible and remove the reference if it is not. Counries listed are Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Italy, Russia, and the United States. Aya McCabre (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Denmark and Holland as well.86.42.200.153 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservative government reinstatement

To make an NPOV point, is it not the case that David Cameron is thinking about opening up a commons vote on this issue at some point?--Malleus Felonius (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have any links to political sites where this might be tracked? (Or even BBC news, or whatever?) I'm trying to stay NPOV on this article too, but I'm pretty good at crunching the nuances of political stuff if I can access it. Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
As soon as I can track the sources down I'll discuss them here. Watch this space!--Malleus Felonius (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
(Edit) I've found a source here [3].--Malleus Felonius (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Owain and Bob should look at this, as they are the lead editors. Does Parliament have a site similar to the US Congress "Thomas" site where pending legislation can be looked up and tracked? Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
They haven't promised to reinstate it, but the Conservative party [4] and subsequently the coalition government [5][6] have promised a free vote in parliament on repeal of the Hunting Act. The likelihood of success is a little unpredictable, as whilst in general Conservatives are likely to vote for repeal, most Labour MPs will likely vote against (as expected along normal class lines for this issue) leaving the Lib Dem MPs with a controlling say, although most of them voted for a ban the first time round. This is all a little moot at the moment as no legislation has been tabled or announced (it wasn't included in the last Queens speech, although many had expected it). On that basis, i'm not sure if it's worth mentioning yet, but if anyone feels particularly strongly that it should, then thats ok. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
If Bob could have a look at this, I'd be much obliged.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Bob98133? Earth to Bob? Or anyone else who has a strong interest here? ;-) Even if it's still in the realm of a campaign promise, probably worth monitoring and maybe keeping at least a note here on the talk page to stay up on the issue. Means keeping an eye on outside news and if moved into the article mainspace, then updating the article a bunch, but not the worst thing to have enough info to stay ahead of the curve and NPOV should a drive-by editor throw in something about it. I've had to do similar tracking on the rodeo articles every time some state or locality passes an ordinance, an anon IP will inevitably dive into the article and place a just plain poor quality edit in that I have to fix...then I get both sides of the issue screaming at me at the same time. Phooey... :-P Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is not called "Fox hunting in Britain", just Fox hunting.86.42.202.126 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are the carcasses?

We need pictures of (a) dead foxes (b) dead hounds (after they are euthanised) (c) dead horses (same as b). Actually one of dead foxes, isn't this the classic absent referent? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see no arguments supporting the showing of dead horses or hounds, or what this would add to the article - they look much the same as the live examples but lifeless - there is also a significant problem of reliable sourcing for any such photograph - was it euthanised? (might have just died), if it was, why? (might have been very sick, and PTS as any other animal would be) - there is lack of anything but hearsay that the practice occurs - it is mentioned as a view put forward by LACS etc, but proof is lacking. The fox one has slightly more merit (although i'm far from convinced of its necessity to illustrate the point which is already made), and as well as the problems above, but any such image would need to meet very high RS standards (and a photo from an anti-hunting group wouldn't - they have much incentive to falsify evidence to support their cause), and i think that in the deep history of this page, nobody could find one that did. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you be a little more succinct please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If you like - "No we don't". OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That is your view, I checked the above debate regarding images, the issues were technical in nature. Let us wait for a consensus to develop. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I see the argument for fox carcass, as death of foxes was historically a goal, and may still be in some places. I think that discussion reached its conclusion previously. Hounds, horses or riders that participated in fox hunting, then died of old age or with medical intervention don't seem at all relevant unless perhaps you have a reliable source that this happens in some remarkable way or with remarkable frequency that you are trying to illustrate with a picture. Horses, hounds and people all die eventually. You don't need a picture to prove that inescapable reality. Tangledweb (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Yogesh, you are causing disruption over all sorts of animal articles. On this one, it's simple: You got a photo of a fox VERIFIED to have been killed at a foxhunt and it passes the criteria for uploading to commons? Then put it there, link to it here at talk and we can decide if it is suitable. Put up or shut up. Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk pages aren't for bullying or abusing but for building a better article, it seems that Montanabw agrees to the necessity of having pictures of murdered foxes, (and hounds and the post-hunt fate of horses?) "medical intervention" is an interesting euphamism for murdering hounds. Retired with a bullet in the head as pension, pups dashed on concrete floors.[7] The point is that this sub-section put up by me informs editors that photographs are solicited across all opinions. We all know that there are more editors building Wikipedia than the three or four of us presently engaged in conversation here. If anyone alleges that I'm a SPA they may have a look at my contributions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Then take your own advice and stop your tendentious editing. You have a POV, that's fine, but this article is not a soapbox for PETA. But like I said bluntly, above, put up the material. Yes, some foxes die (quite a few escape, though, and frankly, compare this to poisoning for overall environmental impact as well as the suffering of the individual animal) and the euthanization of hounds in the wake of the fox hunting ban is pretty well established, but you don't know squat about horses, most retire; the "aged hunter" is an outstanding lesson horse; and to the extent that some hunters meet a bad end, the horse slaughter issue crosses ALL equestrian disciplines, go take that up with the horse racing folks. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yogesh you are presumably well aware that an image of a single animal that died mid hunt, or that was euthanized after its working life was over serves no encyclopedic purpose. Vague accusations that some percentage of horses and hounds are not given a long retirement would not be proven by a photo of one carcass. If you can find a quality source with real numbers, or evidence of large scale culling by some method that would be considered inhumane, then that information could have encyclopedic relevance, but a shock photo purely for shock value does not. You may or may not be aware that a person cannot "murder" an animal. Perverting language to reinforce a POV is not constructive.Tangledweb (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. "...everyone in the house (including the dog) murdered."[8]
  2. "Their dog murdered."[9]
  3. "...found his pet dog murdered..."[10]
  4. "...your dog murdered..."[11]
  5. "...the family dog murdered..."[12]
  6. "Poor dog, murdered at the close of the battle, by the hand of the one in whose interest he had fought, mutilated and exhausted, he could only stand and tremble before his master, and what a return." [Bulletin 1 - 18, Pennsylvania Game Commission, (1917) page xxxviii]

All perverts? (If they are, they are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The language in these contexts is artistic or sensationalistic, not objective and neutral This is an encyclopedia, not a novel or a newspaper. Montanabw(talk) 21:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have evidence for this allegation or is it simply your OR? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder Tangledweb (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Evidence that "the language in the contexts is artistic or sensationalistic, not objective and neutral", no I didn't want links to dictionaries. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You want to enter these articles in evidence. It is your burden of proof tp show that they are NPOV. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
And further, you'll find the murder article has some useful subpages outlining murder law in many major countries. Whilst I don't necessarily believe their uncited claim that all jurisdictions require murder to be of a human, the various individual country pages are more convincing, and show that all the major anglophone countries, and a signficant number of other large countries regards murder as being something you can only do to a human. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the argument of "species-ism" and the question of whether animals can be "murdered' is far bigger than this article anyway. So end of discussion. Montanabw(talk) 18:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Foetuses being killed can be considered murder or not, similarly murder by the state aka capital punishment is legal in some and illegal in others. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for anything so it is useless to bring anything to attention in it. Also anti-speciesism is as much a pov as speciesism. Also anyone who makes any allegation has to back the allegation with evidence, that is fundamental. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Yogesh, evidence IS required. You have the burden of proof here. So please go look in the mirror now. Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you want the issue to be referred to the Reliable sources notice board? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
What issue? That you want to put a photo of a dead fox into this article? Find one verified to have been killed in a foxhunt, I believe the original request was that you need to find something and you have the burden of proving its relevance. So do it. Montanabw(talk) 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh! I believed that the argument all along was about the reliability of the sources that use the word "murder" in relation to murder of animals. Well of-course, if I present a photograph it will have to be kosher. No argument with you on that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
And what, exactly does a bare link to a user created campaign page prove? Not even nearly WP:RS. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It is to demonstrate the way words are used in contemporary English. The article was written by Judy Molland an award winning author. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Drop the WP:STICK, Yogesh. You aren't getting anywhere here. The word "murder" is not going into this article. It's inherently POV, just like calling abortion "murder" is also inherently POV. Not encyclopedic. Montanabw(talk) 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Abortion is considered murder in many jurisdictions and attracts the same penalties as murder. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The world is bigger than the horizon one sees, the world is bigger than the well the frog lives in. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And with that all said, this concludes the drahmahz on this page. Take off the tinfoil helmet, drop the stick and go bother some other project for awhile. We're done here. Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey hold the fire. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Fox hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fox hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fox hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Foxes are considered vermin by the law of England and Wales "

Dear Montanabw

Fox Hunting

I see that you have reverted to your original text "Foxes are considered vermin by the law of England and Wales " by changing David John Crawford’s edit:

The fox is sometimes referred to as vermin but it is not and never has been categorized as such by The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

May I respectfully point out that you are mistaken when you say "Foxes are considered vermin by the law of England and Wales “

Your statement is simply incorrect as the word ‘vermin’ does not feature in modern legislation in the UK.

Foxes may well be considered 'Vermin' by gamekeepers for example, who consider any wild or domestic creature that may predate on gamebirds, or which could damage trees.  That would be foxes, badgers, otters, hedgehogs, stoats, weasels, pine martens,rats, all birds of prey and all corvids. But foxes are not 'vermin' UK law.

Please consider revising to David John Crawford’s edit or if you think I am mistaken please provide a citation to show foxes are classified as vermin in law. (Zinfandelorganic (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC))

The best solution is to avoid POV-toned phrasing such as "is not and never has". I'd suggest something such as "The fox is sometimes referred to as vermin but it is not categorized as such by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)." With a citation. Montanabw(talk) 06:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I take your point to avoid POV-toned phasing but the fox is NOT categorized as 'vermin' by DEFRA, therefore you can not say this and you will be unable to find a citation. Zinfandelorganic (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, omitted "Not". Added it Montanabw(talk) 09:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Aha. Thank you, that is much better. As we now agree, will you alter your text? Zinfandelorganic (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
You can. I'm busy elsewhere today. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fox hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit doubts

Before i edit i just want to see what people think, it says that "in Britain and Ireland, "hunting" without qualification implies fox hunting (or other forms of hunting with hounds" now i'm from Britain and I hunt pheasants, but i have never assumed when someone says the word hunting that they are talking about fox hunting, usually people will clarify that they are talking about fox hunting not deer or rabbit hunting. just want to check what people think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJIHARKER (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

An interesting observation on word use. I am from Britain. IMHO the term "hunting" in the UK implies the killing of foxes or deer. I think the word "shoot" is usually applied to other animals such as pheasants, rabbits, mink. Others may think differently. DrChrissy (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well i would never be so rude as to assume someone's meaning, so i always try to gain clarification, but when I shoot pheasant i tell people i'm 'going hunting', or that i'm 'going hunting'. In my opinion without clarification, the term hunting should not be assumed to have a meaning. But that i may have a different opinion than some, some might think that hunting refers to the hunting of Foxes and Deer. JJIHARKER (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

My take is to look at reliable sources that support the existing claims. Montanabw(talk) 08:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fox hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Flagrant NPOV violation

Despite being outlawed in most of the UK, the article - even the sections dedicated to criticism of the hunt - is padded with pro-hunt adjectives, non-encyclopedic language describing opponents of the hunt, and even explicit, uncited, logically fallacious counterarguments (ex: "this can be countered by...[description of another aspect of the law]"). At very least, the criticism section needs to be rewritten to emphasize the viewpoints of the critics (clearly WP:NOTABLE enough to merit inclusion in the article on the basis that bans of the sport were passed into law), as opposed to the proponents of the sport as it is now. The sections describing the law could use some cleaning up as well. Lastly, throughout the remaining sections, disproportionate emphasis is put on images and viewpoints that depict the (now in many cases illegal) sport. I would even support moving the mention of "House of Lords refusing to pass the law" into the section criticizing the sport based on class, which is widely held (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_Kingdom) to be a very significant influence on UK Society and Culture.132.205.228.106 (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Fox hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Fox hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing film reference

The 1963 film "Tom Jones" featured a notable fox hunting scene.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:1431:C3FD:268D:8917 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_hunting/Archive_3&oldid=1216334402"