This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not opposed to the recent edits to the SAH section. However the reference sourced is pretty biased. There are other more reputable sources to this story that are not part of an agenda. Such as [1] [2] [3]. Is it possible to re-edit the section to reflect a more NPOV source and also put the 'Current Event' Banner over this section as the issue is still in flux? Zonedar ( talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've edited this section to add a recent CDC study regarding lead levels in game consumed by ND residents. I also deleted the section about the University of Iowa study as it seemed trumped (for lack of a better vocabulary) by the CDC study. I wanted to prevent a sense of back-and-forth in this section. Zonedar ( talk) 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The recent edits and reverts got me to thinking about the line in the Revenue Sources section about the numbers of guns SCI members own. It doesn't seem to belong in this section and I question the source. It's a pretty benign fact, but I'd like to see a reference from an more objective source than HSUS. So I'm going to remove it. Zonedar ( talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
SCI and SCIF are separate organizations and I don't think they should be treated as if they were. This page was exclusively about SCI and someone seems to have gone in and inserted segments on SCIF. Perhaps that should be made a separate section or separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhouseman ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing a couple of links that, IMHO, were simply put in as a POV. The article already contains a critisism section as well as POV in the ESA section, for example. Not meaning to get into an edit war, but I'd sure like to the thoughts supporting putting these links into the article. Zonedar 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Key detail missing. How many members in organization? -- MarsRover 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Added. Took a bit of reading to find it. -- Zonedar 04:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I made a few changes to the "Questionable Tax Deductions" section. The entire second paragraph was quoted from an op/ed piece written by the Executive Vice President of the HSUS, and therefore not neutral. I also included more information about the tax break than was originally included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vayne1 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I included "supporters of wildlife conservation" because of the mission statement which reads, "Safari Club International is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide." and because of the roughly $3 million of conservation spending of just under $11 million total expenditures. Therefore, I do not believe that including "supporters of wildlife conservation" violates NPOV. Obviously SCI and HSUS(I think that's a relevant example, given the postings) have differing views on what constitutes wildlife conservation, which would be a good addition to the criticism page. Please let me know if there's something that more experienced editors might see here that I don't. Thanks! Apc1220 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding "supporters of wildlife conservation" is certainly POV language. First, whether what SCI does can be considered conservation is hotly debated. Second, I'm sure SCI is composed of supporters of a LOT of things. What is not debated is that it is composed of hunters. SCI's motto is "first for hunters" and the subtitle of its magazine is "the journal of big game hunting." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ryanhouseman (
talk •
contribs) 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if the latest addition of an external link to HSUS by 70.57.147.253 is due to an agenda. Thought about removing it, but then decided to ask the question here. At the very least the title of the link should be changed. -- Zonedar 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Is Rhino Black/White Tiger Leopard Polar bears All Nth American Bears Still avaliable to hunt? I assume cheetah is.-- Polygamyx4 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
all of the above, with the exception of Tiger, have been approved by CITES for sport hunting. White Rhino, Leopard, and Polar Bear are importable into the U.S. with standard permits from the USFW. Cheetah is importable into most other European Countries with CITES permits. I think that Black Rhino (only RSA, I believe) is handled on a case-by-case basis in each country. Zonedar 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed this section as it was POV. Citing HSUS press releases is clearly biased. Unless the Author can cites independent sources and provide objective counter arguments, then the section should be removed.
Zonedar (
talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate and in keeping with the NPOV to cite the Humane Society of the United States as an authority on whether or not SCI allows animals from canned hunts in their record books? Apparently, "Safari Club does allow persons to seek recognition [for animals from "canned hunts"], but only under limitations that most preserves can’t meet" (from counterbias.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.40.69 ( talk) 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
How is it inappropriate to cite a source when the information is accurate? SCI allows animals from canned hunts to be included in its record books. Look at the record books. That is what "estate" always means when listed by hundreds of animals in the book.
Exactly what "limitations" are these? There is no space requirement. There is no requirement that the animal not have been obtained from a zoo or roadside circus. There is no requirement that the animal not be shot in a guaranteed kill hunt. There is not requirement that the animal even have been killed legally. There are dozens, if not hundreds of canned hunting ranches listed in SCI's record books. I wouldn't say that most don't meet SCI's qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhouseman ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this section necessary? It is already mentioned in Leadership section. Every large organization has an annual convention with the same sort of activities. I don't see that listing items sold at auction at the convention or the financial proceeds of the convention add much to this article. I'll remove this section unless there are compelling reasons to keep it. Bob98133 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Just added for completeness. Apc1220 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The last two revisions both contain good info that is referenced. From what I can see, SCI used to encourage tax breaks for hunting but the IRS changed the rules. Maybe the two editors who are reverting each other can combine the info into one concise, well-referenced paragraph which would make the article stronger and less POV? Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there some reason that every award that this group issues should be listed in this article? It makes the article unreadable. Maybe there should be a separate article of SCI Awards? If you look at Boy Scouts of America, that article doesn't list every merit badge awarded and what youhave to do to get it. I say that this entire section should be reduced to one short paragraph that SCI awards members who meet certain goals, otherwise it's just a grocery list of internal criteria for awards. Bob98133 ( talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got your information that the International Wildlife Museum is a municipal museum, but it is not. The Wildlife Museum is actually also the SCI World Headquarters. Also, see the International Wildlife Museum "About" page. [4]. All in all, I think the list of recent changes have helped improve the quality of this article, but maybe the Museum refrence should be re-added? -- Vayne1 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources cited in the new addition to the ednagered species section are not neutral. Source 26 is a hunting organization and source 28 is SCI commenting about CITES. I didn't revert this edit, since the information might be correct, but if the FWS or CITES is being referenced, they should be referenced directly, not from a biased web site. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the "promoting questionable tax deductions section" is at all directly related to SCI. Maybe its due for some rewording or just deletion? I dunno, I'm new here. Just my thoughts. BMello324 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Safari Club International. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Safari Club International. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not opposed to the recent edits to the SAH section. However the reference sourced is pretty biased. There are other more reputable sources to this story that are not part of an agenda. Such as [1] [2] [3]. Is it possible to re-edit the section to reflect a more NPOV source and also put the 'Current Event' Banner over this section as the issue is still in flux? Zonedar ( talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've edited this section to add a recent CDC study regarding lead levels in game consumed by ND residents. I also deleted the section about the University of Iowa study as it seemed trumped (for lack of a better vocabulary) by the CDC study. I wanted to prevent a sense of back-and-forth in this section. Zonedar ( talk) 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The recent edits and reverts got me to thinking about the line in the Revenue Sources section about the numbers of guns SCI members own. It doesn't seem to belong in this section and I question the source. It's a pretty benign fact, but I'd like to see a reference from an more objective source than HSUS. So I'm going to remove it. Zonedar ( talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
SCI and SCIF are separate organizations and I don't think they should be treated as if they were. This page was exclusively about SCI and someone seems to have gone in and inserted segments on SCIF. Perhaps that should be made a separate section or separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhouseman ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing a couple of links that, IMHO, were simply put in as a POV. The article already contains a critisism section as well as POV in the ESA section, for example. Not meaning to get into an edit war, but I'd sure like to the thoughts supporting putting these links into the article. Zonedar 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Key detail missing. How many members in organization? -- MarsRover 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Added. Took a bit of reading to find it. -- Zonedar 04:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I made a few changes to the "Questionable Tax Deductions" section. The entire second paragraph was quoted from an op/ed piece written by the Executive Vice President of the HSUS, and therefore not neutral. I also included more information about the tax break than was originally included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vayne1 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I included "supporters of wildlife conservation" because of the mission statement which reads, "Safari Club International is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide." and because of the roughly $3 million of conservation spending of just under $11 million total expenditures. Therefore, I do not believe that including "supporters of wildlife conservation" violates NPOV. Obviously SCI and HSUS(I think that's a relevant example, given the postings) have differing views on what constitutes wildlife conservation, which would be a good addition to the criticism page. Please let me know if there's something that more experienced editors might see here that I don't. Thanks! Apc1220 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding "supporters of wildlife conservation" is certainly POV language. First, whether what SCI does can be considered conservation is hotly debated. Second, I'm sure SCI is composed of supporters of a LOT of things. What is not debated is that it is composed of hunters. SCI's motto is "first for hunters" and the subtitle of its magazine is "the journal of big game hunting." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ryanhouseman (
talk •
contribs) 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if the latest addition of an external link to HSUS by 70.57.147.253 is due to an agenda. Thought about removing it, but then decided to ask the question here. At the very least the title of the link should be changed. -- Zonedar 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Is Rhino Black/White Tiger Leopard Polar bears All Nth American Bears Still avaliable to hunt? I assume cheetah is.-- Polygamyx4 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
all of the above, with the exception of Tiger, have been approved by CITES for sport hunting. White Rhino, Leopard, and Polar Bear are importable into the U.S. with standard permits from the USFW. Cheetah is importable into most other European Countries with CITES permits. I think that Black Rhino (only RSA, I believe) is handled on a case-by-case basis in each country. Zonedar 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed this section as it was POV. Citing HSUS press releases is clearly biased. Unless the Author can cites independent sources and provide objective counter arguments, then the section should be removed.
Zonedar (
talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate and in keeping with the NPOV to cite the Humane Society of the United States as an authority on whether or not SCI allows animals from canned hunts in their record books? Apparently, "Safari Club does allow persons to seek recognition [for animals from "canned hunts"], but only under limitations that most preserves can’t meet" (from counterbias.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.40.69 ( talk) 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
How is it inappropriate to cite a source when the information is accurate? SCI allows animals from canned hunts to be included in its record books. Look at the record books. That is what "estate" always means when listed by hundreds of animals in the book.
Exactly what "limitations" are these? There is no space requirement. There is no requirement that the animal not have been obtained from a zoo or roadside circus. There is no requirement that the animal not be shot in a guaranteed kill hunt. There is not requirement that the animal even have been killed legally. There are dozens, if not hundreds of canned hunting ranches listed in SCI's record books. I wouldn't say that most don't meet SCI's qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhouseman ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this section necessary? It is already mentioned in Leadership section. Every large organization has an annual convention with the same sort of activities. I don't see that listing items sold at auction at the convention or the financial proceeds of the convention add much to this article. I'll remove this section unless there are compelling reasons to keep it. Bob98133 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Just added for completeness. Apc1220 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The last two revisions both contain good info that is referenced. From what I can see, SCI used to encourage tax breaks for hunting but the IRS changed the rules. Maybe the two editors who are reverting each other can combine the info into one concise, well-referenced paragraph which would make the article stronger and less POV? Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there some reason that every award that this group issues should be listed in this article? It makes the article unreadable. Maybe there should be a separate article of SCI Awards? If you look at Boy Scouts of America, that article doesn't list every merit badge awarded and what youhave to do to get it. I say that this entire section should be reduced to one short paragraph that SCI awards members who meet certain goals, otherwise it's just a grocery list of internal criteria for awards. Bob98133 ( talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got your information that the International Wildlife Museum is a municipal museum, but it is not. The Wildlife Museum is actually also the SCI World Headquarters. Also, see the International Wildlife Museum "About" page. [4]. All in all, I think the list of recent changes have helped improve the quality of this article, but maybe the Museum refrence should be re-added? -- Vayne1 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources cited in the new addition to the ednagered species section are not neutral. Source 26 is a hunting organization and source 28 is SCI commenting about CITES. I didn't revert this edit, since the information might be correct, but if the FWS or CITES is being referenced, they should be referenced directly, not from a biased web site. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the "promoting questionable tax deductions section" is at all directly related to SCI. Maybe its due for some rewording or just deletion? I dunno, I'm new here. Just my thoughts. BMello324 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Safari Club International. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Safari Club International. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)