![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm going to create a stub article here and work on expanding it over the next few weeks. I hope to shortly add a history of the anti-hunting political movement and discussion of current issues. I'm wondering if I need to add in its definition that it is primarily a UK phenomenon? Anyone is welcomed to contribute as long as they keep a NPOV in keeping with Wikipedia policies.
Yes class thing in UK as most other places dotn have class anymore or there its not related to hunting.-- Polygamist times 4 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussions of current issues and unintended consequences. Especially needed is a neutral discussion of the unintended consequences of the British fox hunting laws.
The idea that there is an anti-hunting movement, in the sense that there is any identifiable unifying philosophy seems unlikely. I understand that there are groups which oppose certain acts, or certain types of hunting, but are there groups or a group who seek to end all hunting or at least oppose all hunting? Perhaps creating a category, rather than an article would be the way to go. This page seems prone to attempts to pull all groups together in order to throw up a series of straw men to knock down. Destruction of foxes as a result of an admittedly silly anti-fox hunting law is a consequence of that law, not necessarily an anti-hunting philosophy in general. I am a hunter and believe very firmly that hunting has positive social and moral value. It gives one a connection with one's food and the natural world that is not obtainable at the supermarket. A reverence for the lives given up to provide the hunter with food is something that the majority of people living in the first world have lost. I think that hunting stands on its own merits without having to resort to punching down straw men.-- Counsel 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that the article is entirely without merit. Upon review, I think that perhaps a short explaination of the anti-hunting movement, or perhaps making the article UK specific where such organizations have generated more media coverage and then create a category. Certainly there are organizations that are anti-hunting. Whether or not their anti-hunting sentiments are similar enough to warrant an article covering anti-huntingism in general remains to be seen. A category would at least allow someone doing research on this sort of thing to find the various organizations.-- Counsel 21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Anti anything means you are against it in any for or in any reason. This has been lossened so as to include a person who may not like fox hunting with dogs but not be against pig shooting. they are still anti-hunting in some cases but not all!-- Big5Hunter 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the reference because it does not confirm the comment in the article. Indeed, the statement in the cited source, "it was not class war as we know it. It was not launched by the tribunes against the toffs - it was the other way round" implies perhaps the opposite of the comment in this article. I think beter evidence is needed for this assertion to stand. MikeHobday 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. This assertion comes from one who spent years inside the anti-hunting movement. If he is not a knowlegable source, who would be.-- Counsel 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You say that an assertion by an opponent is not reliable. This seems an effective way of ensuring that only one POV would be provided. Anyone who disagrees is wrong, ipso facto. Here we have a report from a person who participated in managed the activities of key player in the anti-hunting movement. He states that the efforts were motivated by class differences. Motivation is not a tangible thing that can be examined. Such a report is the only way that it can be demonstrated. Are we to exclude such things as the statment in the League Against Cruel Sports article which states "We believe that nobody has the right to terrorise and kill animals for sport,". It is impossible to verify that the LACS believes this. Annette Crosbie stated it, but it cannot be verified. The only difference between the two statements is the POV of the person reported to have made it. Are you arguing that both should be removed, or only the one with which you disagree.-- Counsel 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Found you a reliable source. [1] , para 4.12. If this is inserted in appropriate context, I would certainly consider it verifiable. Not sure if you are familiar with the Burns report. Over 95% of it was accepted by both sides of the argument. MikeHobday 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Depends where it is, in the UK where there is a class system still. Its view si strongly linked to class.-- Polygamist times 4 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Should this article still be considered a stub and an orphan? IMHO, thanks primarily to the efforts of MikeHobday and Counselit appears to have outgrown its stub classification and possibly the orphan classification as well. (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment)
I added a POV warning template to this section, as I have some issues with the neutrality of the first few lines:
The assertion that class struggle is a 'very minor aspect' of the British anti-hunting movement is disputable, at the very least. Certainly, accurately or not, arguments over hunting in the UK have long been portrayed as being between upper-class landowners on the one hand and their lower-class opponents on the other. (Anecdotal example: when the Countryside Alliance held a protest outside the Houses of Parliament against the Hunting Act 2004, the Daily Mirror reported it with the simple headline, Class War.) Fox hunting, in particular, has traditionally been seen (and often still is today) as being the preserve of the rural upper-class. (See, for example, the quotes on the page for pro-hunting campaigner Otis Ferry.)
This section of the article argues the opposite, that hunting in the UK is more associated with the working-class; that may be true for rabbit and hare coursing, but it certainly isn't for fox hunting, and it's debatable for hunting as a whole. If hunting really is more associated with the working-class, I have to wonder why it was the Labour Party that passed the Hunting Act against the determined opposition of the Conservative Party (particularly in the House of Lords), rather than the other way around.
As for the quote about hare coursers being 'more Yobs than Nobs' - it's unclear from the context whether that's supposed to be a statement about the class of hare coursers or their behaviour.
Essentially, I think these lines need to be rewritten, to more accurately reflect how the issue of class relates to the debate over hunting in the UK. At the moment, they seem misleading, if not downright inaccurate. Terraxos 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm the only one who's noticed this, but hunting in the UK and the US are different. Centuries of population have destroyed any chance of the common citizen hunting. This whole article seems to be in love with fox hunting, something that an average person would never do. Employment is not critical in this article. But what is critical is that hunting in the US is not fox hunting. It's completely different because the animals to hunt are completely different. To a Briton the phrase "Hunting with dogs" conjures up images of packs of animals tearing apart animals. While to an American that includes fowl, small mammel, wild pig and possibly others. This whole article is flawed in that manner. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dermit15 (
talk •
contribs)
00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Species designated as "endangered" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are protected from hunting in the U.S. therefore hunting endangered species is illegal in the U.S. I should have made that particular distinction I guess. Bugguyak 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Henry Salt page as an EL, but I noted that almost all the pages listed are for general animal rights/welfare orgs, not specifically anti-hunting. If HSUS or PETA have web sites or features on this topic, maybe they could be linked, or if there are organization specifically opposed to hunting, but just having a list of organizations that oppose hunting seems odd. Bob98133 ( talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved, as request was unopposed. — innotata 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Anti-hunting → Opposition to hunting – "Anti-hunting" fails WP:NOUN and looks odd on its own. My suggestion is based on the previous title Opposition to abortion, but I'm open to other suggestions. -- BDD ( talk) 19:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay I removed a cartoon that has been a personal favorite of mine for quite some time, and I dont know how I originally stumbled across it. As much as I love the cartoon, I dont think we should be using it here. The cartoon is funny precisely because it's unrealistic ... and we are attributing to it a very serious message that may or may not have been intended by the original author. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, — Soap — 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm going to create a stub article here and work on expanding it over the next few weeks. I hope to shortly add a history of the anti-hunting political movement and discussion of current issues. I'm wondering if I need to add in its definition that it is primarily a UK phenomenon? Anyone is welcomed to contribute as long as they keep a NPOV in keeping with Wikipedia policies.
Yes class thing in UK as most other places dotn have class anymore or there its not related to hunting.-- Polygamist times 4 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussions of current issues and unintended consequences. Especially needed is a neutral discussion of the unintended consequences of the British fox hunting laws.
The idea that there is an anti-hunting movement, in the sense that there is any identifiable unifying philosophy seems unlikely. I understand that there are groups which oppose certain acts, or certain types of hunting, but are there groups or a group who seek to end all hunting or at least oppose all hunting? Perhaps creating a category, rather than an article would be the way to go. This page seems prone to attempts to pull all groups together in order to throw up a series of straw men to knock down. Destruction of foxes as a result of an admittedly silly anti-fox hunting law is a consequence of that law, not necessarily an anti-hunting philosophy in general. I am a hunter and believe very firmly that hunting has positive social and moral value. It gives one a connection with one's food and the natural world that is not obtainable at the supermarket. A reverence for the lives given up to provide the hunter with food is something that the majority of people living in the first world have lost. I think that hunting stands on its own merits without having to resort to punching down straw men.-- Counsel 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that the article is entirely without merit. Upon review, I think that perhaps a short explaination of the anti-hunting movement, or perhaps making the article UK specific where such organizations have generated more media coverage and then create a category. Certainly there are organizations that are anti-hunting. Whether or not their anti-hunting sentiments are similar enough to warrant an article covering anti-huntingism in general remains to be seen. A category would at least allow someone doing research on this sort of thing to find the various organizations.-- Counsel 21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Anti anything means you are against it in any for or in any reason. This has been lossened so as to include a person who may not like fox hunting with dogs but not be against pig shooting. they are still anti-hunting in some cases but not all!-- Big5Hunter 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the reference because it does not confirm the comment in the article. Indeed, the statement in the cited source, "it was not class war as we know it. It was not launched by the tribunes against the toffs - it was the other way round" implies perhaps the opposite of the comment in this article. I think beter evidence is needed for this assertion to stand. MikeHobday 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. This assertion comes from one who spent years inside the anti-hunting movement. If he is not a knowlegable source, who would be.-- Counsel 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You say that an assertion by an opponent is not reliable. This seems an effective way of ensuring that only one POV would be provided. Anyone who disagrees is wrong, ipso facto. Here we have a report from a person who participated in managed the activities of key player in the anti-hunting movement. He states that the efforts were motivated by class differences. Motivation is not a tangible thing that can be examined. Such a report is the only way that it can be demonstrated. Are we to exclude such things as the statment in the League Against Cruel Sports article which states "We believe that nobody has the right to terrorise and kill animals for sport,". It is impossible to verify that the LACS believes this. Annette Crosbie stated it, but it cannot be verified. The only difference between the two statements is the POV of the person reported to have made it. Are you arguing that both should be removed, or only the one with which you disagree.-- Counsel 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Found you a reliable source. [1] , para 4.12. If this is inserted in appropriate context, I would certainly consider it verifiable. Not sure if you are familiar with the Burns report. Over 95% of it was accepted by both sides of the argument. MikeHobday 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Depends where it is, in the UK where there is a class system still. Its view si strongly linked to class.-- Polygamist times 4 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Should this article still be considered a stub and an orphan? IMHO, thanks primarily to the efforts of MikeHobday and Counselit appears to have outgrown its stub classification and possibly the orphan classification as well. (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment)
I added a POV warning template to this section, as I have some issues with the neutrality of the first few lines:
The assertion that class struggle is a 'very minor aspect' of the British anti-hunting movement is disputable, at the very least. Certainly, accurately or not, arguments over hunting in the UK have long been portrayed as being between upper-class landowners on the one hand and their lower-class opponents on the other. (Anecdotal example: when the Countryside Alliance held a protest outside the Houses of Parliament against the Hunting Act 2004, the Daily Mirror reported it with the simple headline, Class War.) Fox hunting, in particular, has traditionally been seen (and often still is today) as being the preserve of the rural upper-class. (See, for example, the quotes on the page for pro-hunting campaigner Otis Ferry.)
This section of the article argues the opposite, that hunting in the UK is more associated with the working-class; that may be true for rabbit and hare coursing, but it certainly isn't for fox hunting, and it's debatable for hunting as a whole. If hunting really is more associated with the working-class, I have to wonder why it was the Labour Party that passed the Hunting Act against the determined opposition of the Conservative Party (particularly in the House of Lords), rather than the other way around.
As for the quote about hare coursers being 'more Yobs than Nobs' - it's unclear from the context whether that's supposed to be a statement about the class of hare coursers or their behaviour.
Essentially, I think these lines need to be rewritten, to more accurately reflect how the issue of class relates to the debate over hunting in the UK. At the moment, they seem misleading, if not downright inaccurate. Terraxos 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm the only one who's noticed this, but hunting in the UK and the US are different. Centuries of population have destroyed any chance of the common citizen hunting. This whole article seems to be in love with fox hunting, something that an average person would never do. Employment is not critical in this article. But what is critical is that hunting in the US is not fox hunting. It's completely different because the animals to hunt are completely different. To a Briton the phrase "Hunting with dogs" conjures up images of packs of animals tearing apart animals. While to an American that includes fowl, small mammel, wild pig and possibly others. This whole article is flawed in that manner. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dermit15 (
talk •
contribs)
00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Species designated as "endangered" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are protected from hunting in the U.S. therefore hunting endangered species is illegal in the U.S. I should have made that particular distinction I guess. Bugguyak 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Henry Salt page as an EL, but I noted that almost all the pages listed are for general animal rights/welfare orgs, not specifically anti-hunting. If HSUS or PETA have web sites or features on this topic, maybe they could be linked, or if there are organization specifically opposed to hunting, but just having a list of organizations that oppose hunting seems odd. Bob98133 ( talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved, as request was unopposed. — innotata 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Anti-hunting → Opposition to hunting – "Anti-hunting" fails WP:NOUN and looks odd on its own. My suggestion is based on the previous title Opposition to abortion, but I'm open to other suggestions. -- BDD ( talk) 19:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay I removed a cartoon that has been a personal favorite of mine for quite some time, and I dont know how I originally stumbled across it. As much as I love the cartoon, I dont think we should be using it here. The cartoon is funny precisely because it's unrealistic ... and we are attributing to it a very serious message that may or may not have been intended by the original author. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, — Soap — 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)