Talk:Hunting weapon

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Firearms Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

Have reverted move of this page to hunting firearm, as hunting weapon encompasses other weapons that are also used. Yaf 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added copyedit tag, requesting a verification of the grammar of article title.

I added the copyedit tag because the usage of the noun 'weapon' in context of hunting appears to be nonstandard English. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition 1989: a 'weapon' implies combat or warfare. Therefore a firearm used in hunting is not a 'weapon'. No combat and not warfare is involved. A full text search of English language usage in the OED also finds no example of the term 'hunting weapon'. Yaf has replied that he can find examples of the usage in 'mainstream newspapers', but I believe that there are plenty examples of improper English usage to be found in mainstream newspapers, and such does not in itself make the usage to be standard English. The Oxford English Dictionary is the supreme authority on proper English usage, and this Encyclopedia should use standard English.

I attempted to fix the title, a few days ago, by moving the article to Hunting firearms but was reverted by Yaf without a coherent explanation. I will let the user Yaf explain his reasoning, but in short he pointed to the United States Federal Code Title 18, claiming that because one type of hunting firearm, the antique firearm, is defined by US law to be not a firearm for criminal law, that therefore US Law defines "antique firearms to be weapons". Then, because antique firearms are used sometimes for hunting, therefore the article must be titled Hunting weapon. Title 18 actually does not say that antique firearms are defined as 'weapons', and I am not aware of where Yaf actually gets his idea. SaltyBoatr 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar of the article title is entirely standard English. The title has also been Hunting weapon since the creation of the article, until the attempt at POV pushing by SaltyBoatr regarding the "proper" definition of weapon to preclude any mention of hunting. A weapon can be used in combat or in war, clearly. A weapon can also be used for hunting, in which case it is a hunting weapon. Not all hunting weapons are firearms. To claim so is entirely non-factual, and it is clearly POV to assume that only modern firearms can or should be used for hunting. Primitive weapons, for example, are legal for use as hunting weapons, and are commonly used for legal hunting in many states in the United States, in provinces in Canada, and among many other countries. A list of primitive weapons and a section on primitive hunting weapons is also included in the article. Similarly, black powder weapons and antique firearms are legally distinct from firearms, and are often used for hunting during primitive weapon hunting seasons, also. Likewise, air rifles are commonly used in the UK and in the United States as hunting weapons, for the taking of rabbits and other small game, and are not firearms, either. To claim they are firearms is not logical. As for CFR Title 18, this regulation is not about criminal law at all; rather, it is about the legal definition of antique firearms. This definition is used by many states in defining weapons as being legally distinct from firearms. Antique firearms, generally black powder weapons other than inline rifles, are defined based on CFR Title 18 wording, and are not considered firearms at all unless used in a crime in most states. Otherwise, when used for hunting, antique firearms are always categorized as primitive weapons under state and federal laws. The list of primitive weapons discussed in the primitive hunting weapon section also contains articles where the identification of these items as weapons is also clearly stated in their respective articles, along with their use in hunting. I think it is clear that Hunting weapon is entirely proper English, and to claim otherwise is simply a manifestation of Anti-hunting sentiment on the part of SaltyBoatr. Yaf 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion appears entirely to be original research. Could you please restate your opinion, citing credible sources per WP:V? Also, would you please point to the exact clause in Title 18 that defines antique firearms as being weapons? All I see is that it says that 'antique firearms' are not firearms. antique is an adjective modifying a noun. The sentence: "Antique firearms are not firearms" is self contradictory because they are a type of firearm, the antique type. Perhaps the trouble is that we are trying to read the primary document and we misunderstand the context? That is why I guess that it means in the context of crime. Anyway, I am not anti-hunting by the way (I want to get a deer tag this year). And I have no idea why using English as described in the Oxford English Dictionary does anything what-so=ever to threaten you and hunting. Please explain. SaltyBoatr 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No original research at all. In the EPA 2004-2005 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations [2], it is noted: “We prohibit possession of more than one hunting weapon while in the field.” Similarly, it is noted,

“ 13. Primitive weapons hunters (sambar deer and January white-tailed deer hunt), when outside the campsite area, must wear a minimum of 500 square inches (3,250 cm\2\) of a solid, unbroken pattern of fluorescent orange-colored material visible above the waistline. 14. We limit weapons to muzzleloaders or bow and arrow on the sambar deer hunt and the January white-tailed deer hunt. We limit the December hunt to bow and arrow. Weapons must meet all State regulations.”

This is only one sourced and cited example, but the terminology hunting weapon and the fact that weapons are used for hunting is in widespread common English usage, the OED notwithstanding. Likewise, muzzleloaders, which meet CFR Title 18 antique firearm requirements, are considered weapons. Unlike what your interpretation of the OED is (which, I might add, appears to be original research on your part), weapons are clearly used for hunting. This is not original research on my part, but is simply common English usage. This whole discussion is getting a little tiresome, and it is starting to appear you are trolling, but I will still assume WP:AGF for now. Hunting weapon makes perfect sense in English. Yaf 21:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that the United States Environmental Protection Agency is the place to look to check usage of standard English in a global encylopedia? I have pointed to the Oxford English Dictionary, which beyond all doubt is the authority on usage of the English language. And regardless, the EPA is writing only of dual use firearms, which are used both for hunting and as weapons in combat. Their wording is sloppy, but is describing the use of a combat weapon for hunting. How does this prove that the term 'hunting weapon' is proper English? SaltyBoatr 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be such a big deal. The Encyclopedia should use standard English. Notice that the EPA wording says primitive weapons hunters, which is actually standard English usage to describe hunting with primitive weapons. While the term primitive hunting weapon is not standard English. Have you actually read these definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? If not, could you please read it so we can discuss the definitions? Thanks. SaltyBoatr 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the EPA document[[3]] Yaf cited from is actually only a "proposed rule". Also, notice that Yaf did not answer my question about Title 18. SaltyBoatr 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The EPA document has nothing to do with combat; it is merely a set of proposed hunting regulations given as an example. Please stop your POV pushing that weapons are only used for combat and warfare due to your misreading of the OED. Weapons can be used for combat, during warfare, of course, but can also be used for hunting. Such usage is clearly standard English, widely published in Governmental regulations regarding hunting, at both the state and federal levels, in magazines, and in newspapers, all of which are verifiable. Just do a Google search, and you will see that "hunting weapon" is clearly standard English. I clearly don't understand why you are pushing a POV that weapons are never used for hunting because of something you have read in the OED. Weapons clearly are used for hunting, which incorporates firearms along with primitive hunting weapons. Also, I don't understand how you can claim that atlatls and other primitive hunting weapons that are ranged weapons are somehow supposed to be considered firearms; they clearly are not firearms. Neither are cross bows, or bows or spears or a whole host of other hunting weapons ever considered any kind of firearm. Please stop this silliness. Thank you. Yaf 18:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper usage of the English language is not silliness. I am literally reading the OED, not misreading. Your research on Google is no more than original research. Google does nothing to filter out grammar errors. Just because to your ear the term 'hunting weapon' sounds right does not make the term standard English. SaltyBoatr 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your unverified claim that the term 'hunting weapon' is widely published in Government regulations also appears false. If it was true, a Google search would find it and this search: "hunting weapon" site:.gov returns a paltry 171 hits, a very low number. Exactly what one would expect to find with a 'grammar error' in a Google search. SaltyBoatr 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not claimed that weapons are never used for hunting. With dual use, as you pointed out with muskets, people can hunt with combat weapons. I am simply asserting that the term 'hunting weapon' is not proper English per the OED. SaltyBoatr 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you have done just that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weapon&diff=136133194&oldid=136131392 Yaf 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, my complaint is that the term 'hunting weapon' is not standard English. Though I agree, that one may use a weapon to hunt. It is a subtle, but real, distinction. SaltyBoatr 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You basically said[4] the same thing "firearms ... are not considered weapons when used for hunting." SaltyBoatr 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting me out of context. I was speaking there of the legal difference that black powder or antique firearms are considered legally to be weapons, and that they are legally treated distinctly different than modern firearms under firearms laws. On the other hand, modern firearms are treated as firearms under the law, and are treated differently than are items that fall strictly into the legal category of weapons. Both, however, i.e., antique firearms and modern firearms, are often used as weapons for hunting. And, as scot points out below, many firearms are distinctly not intended for use as weapons, or for hunting, but rather are intended for use as sporting tools solely for competition and punching precision holes in paper targets. It is pejorative and factually inaccurate to call these competitive shooting firearms weapons, to the shooting cognoscenti. Yaf 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is shooting a paper target different than shooting a rabbit? Both are sporting and neither involve 'combat'. SaltyBoatr 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbit would certainly see a difference. Also, one of these acts for me results in a tasty meal, whereas I don't eat paper. On the other hand, during the Shot heard Round the World at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, nearly all of the weapons used by the soon-to-be Americans were hunting weapons that had been pushed into service among militia members as combat weapons. This article, however, is not about militia or militia weapons, or combat weapons, but is instead about hunting weapons being used for hunting. Lets stay on topic. Yaf 04:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that clubs and bows are not firearms, so perhaps the best 'standard English' title should be Hunting tools or Hunting implements. Further, unless the WP:V and WP:NOR problems are cleared up shortly I would favor a move to AFD this article. SaltyBoatr 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Yaf; a "weapon" in common usage is a tool designed to injure or kill any living thing. The EOD is not the only dictionary out there, and it is not an authoritative source--they don't make the words, they describe the usage^[1]. Looking at Dictionary.reference.com, which is handy because it groups together a number of different sources, I see the following definitions:

2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. (Random House unabridged, 2006)
3. Zoology. any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings. (Random House unabridged, 2006)
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon. (American Heritage, 2006)
1. any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon" (WordNet, Princeton, 2006
any instrument or means which is used for one's own defence or for attacking others (Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), 2006)

While other definitions do deal with combat or warfare, it is by no means exclusive to that field. The reason many shooters object to the term "weapon" used for a firearm is the fact that the average Hammerelli free pistol, for example, is NOT intended to be weapon, as it is intended only to very accurately punch holes in paper at 50 meters distance. It can be used as a weapon, but then ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, and by the definitions above, anything used to inflict damage while hunting is a weapon. scot 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples 1,2,3 and 5 do not conflict with the OED defintion. Your fourth example, WordNet, is a lexical database, not a dictionary and therefore is not useful to answer the question of standard usage. Your discussion about the Hammerelli pistol appears to be original research. SaltyBoatr 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Dictionary:

The dictionary is a list of words with their definitions, a list of characters with their glyphs, or a list of words with corresponding words in other languages. In a few languages, words can appear in many different forms, but only the lemma form appears as the main word or headword in most dictionaries. Many dictionaries also provide pronunciation information; grammatical information; word derivations, histories, or etymologies; illustrations; usage guidance; and examples in phrases or sentences. Dictionaries are most commonly found in the form of a book, but more and more dictionaries are produced as a software runs from electronic PDA or a general purpose computer. Most dictionaries are produced by lexicographers.

From Lexicography: The pursuit of lexicography is divided into two related disciplines:

* Practical lexicography is the art or craft of compiling, writing and editing dictionaries.

* Theoretical lexicography is the scholarly discipline of analyzing and describing the semantic relationships within the lexicon (vocabulary) of a language and developing theories of dictionary components and structures linking the data in dictionaries. This is sometimes referred to as metalexicography.

I fail to see the difference between a "lexical database" and a "database compiled by a lexicographer" and a "dictionary". They all are collections of words and definitions; if you argue that one is descriptive while the other is definitive (which is POV), then you should use the descriptive sources, as they are secondary (and thus preferred), while the definitive source is primary. (As an aside, while I reject the OED as an authoritative source (it didn't create the language) I do think Wikipedia needs to deal better with the issue of authoritative sources.)

Even if you toss out the WordNet definition, then it's still the case by the remaining definitions any tool used to injure or kill an animal while hunting is a weapon. As for the example of the free pistol, yes, that is a personal observation, but it goes along with the given definitions of "weapon"--a weapon is defined by use ("used", "serving", "used", "used", "used"), not by characteristics. scot 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other dictionaries conflict with the OED, and the OED carries a great deal of authority. Per the OED, I see that a gun used to kill a bear that is attacking you is a weapon. The same gun used to kill a bear for sport is not a weapon. SaltyBoatr 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So killing a bear for sport is not attacking it? It is not an adversary or victim in that scenario? I'm sure the bear would disagree with you. Just grabbing the first definitions from dictionary.reference.com, I see "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with"; certainly shooting a bear qualifies. scot 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swap the words 'rabbit' for 'bear' and I see your logic fall apart. A hunter never fights with a rabbit. Also, the OED carries a great deal of authority, and chooses to use the words 'warfare' and 'combat', both involving reciprocity. For example, a gun used by an executioner to effect capital punishment would be not be considered a weapon per the OED definition. Neither a gun used for target shooting. SaltyBoatr 21:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, see above, the OED definition of 'hunting' is actually describing the chase, not the killing. Per the OED, one could go hunting with a camera. SaltyBoatr 21:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, top definition from dictionary.reference.com for "hunt" is "to chase or search for (game or other wild animals) for the purpose of catching or killing", and for "hunter" "a person who hunts game or other wild animals for food or in sport" (eating something tends to have lethal consequences for the meal). For a camera, the better word is "safari", which is "a journey or expedition, for hunting, exploration, or investigation, esp. in eastern Africa", and most commonly found in the form of a "photo safari" these days. While you won't find that term in a dictionary, I'm sure far more people go to Africa with a camera than an Express rifle these days, and it's certainly a common term in the travel industry. scot 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I miss your point. The key issue with hunting is the chase. Per the OED, a person goes hunting with a butterfly net. SaltyBoatr 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the OED, a weapon implies combat or warfare, in other words: aggressive reciprocity. Therefore, the title of the article Hunting weapon is poor English because hunting is a non-aggressive and non-reciprocal sport. SaltyBoatr 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a person can go hunting with a butterfly net (in the sense of "to catch"), and whether or not the net is a weapon depends on how it's used. If it is used to capture the butterfly unharmed, then it is not a weapon, but if it is used to kill the butterfly, then it is.

And where are you getting reciprocity in this? Is the Glock Cho used not a weapon, because his victims were not fighting back? Was he not aggressive? None of "used against", "attack", "defeat" or "victim" imply any reciprocity. scot 22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warfare and combat, from the OED require reciprocity. SaltyBoatr 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by this you mean that both sides must use weapons, this is patently silly and wrong. Requiring reciprocity of weapons has little to nothing to do with defining the state of war and the presence of combat. There are many historical cases that exist for showing unbalanced warfare and combat do historically exist with arms prevalent on only one side. Okinawa was subjugated by the Japanese Samarai, and the Okinawans were forbidden to have any arms. Even the knife for the village was kept chained in the center of the village for use in butchering animals, so that it could not be used as a weapon. Instead of relying on overt weapons, empty hand combat techniques (kara te, or in English, karate) was developed to counter the Japanese Samarai, kara being the root symbol meaning either empty or Chinese, depending on which kara symbol was used, te being the root word or symbol meaning hand. The OED clearly doesn't go into this either, yet warfare and combat without reciprocity of arms did occur historically, and examples exist even today. Warfare and combat require no reciprocity in terms of weapons, the OED notwithstanding. Yaf 20:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the OED definition? If not, could you read it please so we can discuss their etymology? I don't agree with you original logic, presented above. Can we just rely upon a credible authority, like the OED? Thanks. SaltyBoatr 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your recognition that for a butterfly net, 'how it is used' is what makes the net a weapon or not. Similar is true for guns. Hunting is either sport or subsistence. Yet a use for sport or subsistence do not make the gun a weapon, per the OED. Therefore, the 'hunting weapon' is poor English and the article should be renamed. SaltyBoatr 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the same significance to the 'killing' aspect as you do. If you were right, the gun used in an execution would be a weapon, and obviously it is not. SaltyBoatr

One of the definitions from Websters for weapon is, "anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy." Wordnet says, "any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting." Dictionary.com says, " anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim."--LWF 22:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WordNet is not a dictionary so it brings very little authority to this question. Yet the OED holds a great authority. The OED says that 'weapon' involves combat or warfare, which matches closely the object of the Webster's definition which is 'an enemy'. You try to distort the Dictionary.com definition by truncating it, actually it says "2. - anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire." In light your distortion I see I cannot assume good faith from you. SaltyBoatr 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What distortion? That was just an example of it in that usage and I deemed it not integral to the definition. Although I notice you make no comment on the definition itself. A rabbit can be considered a victim if one of the listed objects is used against it. That object is then a weapon. The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary Third Edition says, "any instrument used in fighting." It defines fight as, "1, engage in combat. 2,strive; contend." In legal terms (I work in a law office, I have seen the documents) if someone uses an object to attack, injure, or even threaten, then the object has become a weapon.--LWF 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

section break

It has been shown, with attribution to the WordNet lexical database, that the term 'Hunting weapon' exists in the English language. And obviously, this term has widespread usage among the United States gun culture, though generally not in the rest of the English speaking world.

"Gun culture"? What the hell is "gun cutlure", other than some perjorative political term created to imply that anyone who desires to own a firearm also supports gang warfare, mass murders and drive by shootings? If you're trying to argue that "hunting weapon" is jargon, then perhaps it it, but then gun jargon should be acceptable to provide minimum ambiguity in a technical article on guns. The term "hunting weapon" can also be found on the Brady Campaign's website (as in "we don't want to take your hunting weapons") and I found the term mentioned on Germany's US consulate website. scot 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also has been shown, with attribution to the Oxford English Dictionary, that 'Hunting weapon' is not standard English. Consider that this encyclopedia is a global encyclopedia, not a gun culture encyclopedia; a question then remains:

Should Wikipedia use non-standard 'gun culture' English for the title of this article, when reasonable standard English options exist?

I think the answer is no. And, at the least, I have not heard reasoned arguments why the encyclopedia should use non-standard English. SaltyBoatr 14:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occured to anyone that the definitions provided from all these sources are not mutually exclusive? That perhaps multiple dictionaries will provide multiple correct meanings of a different word?--LWF 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they are MORE CORRECT! scot 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already noted this fact multiple times; the dictionaries which have been cited do not conflict which each other. Yet, the Oxford definition conflicts with the gun culture usage of the term 'Hunting weapon'. Not to say that the gun culture usage is not widespread, but just to say, per the OED, that the gun culture is not using standard English.

Regardless, could you answer the question: Should Wikipedia use non-standard 'gun culture' English for the title of this article, when reasonable standard English options exist? SaltyBoatr 16:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting regulations printed by state and federal bodies hardly constitute an ergot of gun culture language. Instead, their chosen vocabulary reflects a technical vocabulary that is entirely standard English, but which is perhaps not reflected in the OED, it being primarily devoted to describing non-technical words. This would be much the same as attempting to write an engineering article, and instead of using language common to engineering usage, insisting on using liberal arts English that is entirely inappropriate for an engineering article. Likewise, I don't think you would get very far by insisting that "very itchy red bumps" should always be used on Wikipedia in place of using proper medical terminology of pruitis or chicken pox or shingles in every medical article on Wikipedia dealing with one of these conditions. To a lay person, the different conditions may all look like "itchy red bumps", yet to a medical doctor, these 3 conditions are noticeably different. This article is no different. Lets use the English that is common and appropriate for the discussions of each article, instead of forcing the language into clearly non-standard English usages that is not common or appropriate for a topic through insisting on using OED definitions instead of relying on appropriate versions of English for articles. Clearly, we should write articles for Wikipedia using the language appropriate for the article, instead of a pidgin-English built from using inappropriate vocabulary based solely on the OED, and we should promote the use of the English language vocabulary that will appear appropriate to educated lay people as well as to experts in any given field. Yaf 03:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would the legal definition do? I'm certain I can find it soon.--LWF 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Yaf has yet identified is one EPA proposed regulation. In any case, I am not surprised that these regulations would be drafted with 'gun culture' wording. It is safe to guess that the agencies are staffed by members of the gun culture, and certainly they need to communicate with members of the gun culture, so writing in the vernacular of the gun culture is appropriate for them, but not for us.

The 'big picture' question is whether this is a global encyclopedia. LWF asks "Would the legal definition do?", with a POV bias revealed by the unsaid assumption that the jurisdiction is the United States. Certainly, the wording of laws of one country should not have an undue weight in a global encyclopedia. The subtext of Yaf's argument, that the OED forces "a pidgin-English"; is that this article is a gun culture article. Therefore, Yaf argues it should use natural gun culture language. I strongly disagree, this should be a global article.

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and the articles should be written in a globally neutral language, even these special interest articles. Would the title Hunting equipment, or something similar be all that horrible? Would sourcing the article with neutral reliable sources hurt? The benefit could be an improvement to the credibility of the encyclopedia, because when people who do not belong to the gun culture read this article and see it unsourced and written with a gun culture bias, our credibility suffers. SaltyBoatr 18:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting tools or equipment has a different connotation than weapon. A weapon quite clearly has the connotation of an attack, even if no retaliation or combat is involved. In fact, a firearms can be used to attack and kill a person, and even though no true combat has occured, it is still being used as a weapon. That is the law in any country. Likewise, using most any object to attack a person, even if they do not retaliate or engage in combat will be defined as assault with a weapon. Also, it has been admitted that there may be more than one correct definition of weapon; isn't it possible that some of the ones such as those that say "anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. (Random House unabridged, 2006)" might also be correct, and that this definition is Standard English as well? Per this definition, using Weapon in the term "Hunting Weapon" is correct English, and not at all uncredible.--LWF 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of 'Hunting weapon' is the gun culture definition, which is at odds with the global standard usage. You are essentially claiming that the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong. Indeed the OED is wrong, but only from your perspective (that of the gun culture). What you need to argue, and have failed so far to argue, is why or whether the encyclopedia should be written from the perspective of the gun culture. I argue it should be written from a global perspective. SaltyBoatr 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the OED is wrong, I am saying that its definition is not the only correct one. My POV is that its definition is a correct definition but that the one I cited above is also a correct definition of weapon. Per the Random House definition (I highly doubt that they can be considered to be writing from the Gun Culture's POV) the use of Weapon in the term Hunting Weapon could be considered a correct definition, both inside and outside of the gun culture.--LWF 19:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Random House definition does not conflict with the OED definition and vice versa.

And, you stretch to read the Random house allegorical definition (the one associated with satire) as 'correct' according to your POV. Are you saying that guns when used for hunting are allegorical weapons? Indeed, they are. But in that case, I argue that the encyclopedia should avoid allegory when possible because allegory is easily misunderstood. SaltyBoatr 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that it would be an allegorical weapon, the "Deadly weapon of satire" bit is an example of it in that usage, not part of the actual definition.--LWF 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write 'an example of it in that usage'. Yes, an allegorical example. It is incredible for you to deny what you see in black and white and claim that allegory is not part of the Random House definition. If you are correct you then are in conflict with the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a strong authority. Who should we believe, you or the OED? SaltyBoatr 23:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is literal, not an allegory. The example is an example of using something (in this case satire) as a weapon. It should be noted that the definition says, "Anything used against an opponent, adversary or victim [end of definition]: [start of example] the deadly weapon of satire." It does not say satire, it says Anything. To provide an example of different dictionaries providing different but correct definitions, I will use the example of French-to-English dictionaries. In the Larousse French-to-English Concise Dictionary it defines Pitre as a masculine-noun meaning Clown, and when used as "Faire le Pitre" as to fool about. In the Collins Robert French Dictionary it defines Pitre as a masculine noun also meaning Clown, and with "Faire le Pitre" meaning "to fool about, or to fool around, or to act the fool." These provide different definitions of the same word, yet both are correct. As such, I do not say the OED is wrong, just that there are other correct definitions of weapon that allow for the term "Hunting weapon" to be Standard English.--LWF 00:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you need to modify the text of the Random House definition to make your point. Just because you find another dictionary does not fix this problem: Either the gun culture definition or the OED definition must be wrong because those two definitions conflict. I will wait a week to hear your reply, I am heading out of town now. SaltyBoatr 01:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What modification? Those examples are not integral to the definition in any way. They are just there to present an example, and that is all that satire bit was. I made no modification of the definition, because the satire portion was not part of the definition proper. Also, has it not occured to you that both definitions could be correct? Just like one dictionary can provide multiple correct definitions of a word, so too can multiple dictionaries present multiple correct definitions of a word.--LWF 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either the gun culture definition or the OED definition must be wrong because those two definitions conflict. Have you read the definition of 'weapon' in the Oxford English Dictionary? SaltyBoatr 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do they contradict? The two definitions merely could be interpreted as, "a weapon is..." and "a weapon can also be..." rather then being interpreted as, "a weapon is this" or "a weapon is that but not this". Besides, we only have your decision that the OED is the only standard english dictionary in existance. Your statements to this point have essentially stated that if something is not a verbatim copy of the OED it is not Standard English and is therefore not suitable for Wikipedia, per your opinion. We have multiple citations that show the term "Hunting weapon" is Standard English, while on your side we have your insistence that only the OED is Standard English. Aside from all this, I found the term Hunting weapon more informative than Hunting tool, because weapon implies (and rightly so in my opinion) that an attack or violence is taking place. Tool has the connotation of construction and industry rather than attack.--LWF 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your "multiple citations", could you restate them? All I recall is your "Random House unabridged, 2006" definition, the one with the allegorical usage. Further, your rationalization that we should ignore that allegory found in your definition is a great stretch of logic. Have you provided other citations?
Would you please answer my question: Have you read the OED definition? The accompanying OED etymology is very enlightening, and perhaps it would be helpful if you read it so we can discuss. Thanks.
Also, I don't see that your usage of the word 'attack' is consistent with hunting. Per the dictionaries I have read, hunting is the search and pursuit not the violence and killing. And, the killing associated with hunting is just barely "an attack", there must be a better, more grammatically correct term. SaltyBoatr 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question, 'How do they contradict?': Read the OED definition to see. During the last millennium of usage of that word, the context has consistently been 'combat' and 'warfare'. The modern gun culture usage conflicts with the last millennium of usage because no combat or no warfare is implied when hunting. SaltyBoatr 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "millennium" is only about, oh, 400 years too long, given that William Caxton only started standardizing published English in the mid to latter part of the 15th Century. The Oxford English Dictionary obviously didn't document any usage of English words before works in English were published. Claiming "The modern gun culture usage conflicts with the last millennium of usage because no combat or no warfare is implied when hunting" is patently false. Yaf 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your response to mean you have not actually read the OED definition of 'weapon'. Could you please read it so we can actually discuss what the OED says, (they date the origin of the word to the poem Beowulf). Hopefully we can avoid wasting energy arguing past each other. SaltyBoatr 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No where does Wikipedia policy require that we use only the OED as a sole reference for determining anything. Clearly, there are many references that show that hunting weapon is valid English, and that the expression is also in common use. That is all that matters here, not whether one book makes any statement or not. Yaf 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Longbows" were first used as a hunting weapon in and prior to the 13th Century, though, before their introduction into English warfare during the 13th Century. [5] Yaf 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite ironic, for you to point to the book _Warfare in World History_, when the essence of my argument is that 'weapons' implies 'warfare' per the OED. I grant that weapons of war have had a long history of dual use, but that does not make the term 'hunting weapon' standard English. The OED is a very powerful authority. SaltyBoatr 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in the reference shows the use of "hunting weapon" relative to longbows, and points out that they were used as hunting weapons long before they were used as weapons of war starting in the 13th Century. No irony here, just another example of the usage of hunting weapon in yet another English language source. Whether or not one book (the OED) says anything is not the issue here. It is highly obvious that hunting weapon is an expression that is in common and widespread use, and that it is entirely proper English. Yaf 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary, which is hardly 'one book', is the preeminent authority on usage of the English language, a very powerful authority. Not to say that you cannot find examples of misuse of the English language. By the way, you have not actually demonstrated that 'hunting weapon' is in widespread use. Though I agree it enjoys common usage in the gun culture. The question is, I repeat: Should Wikipedia use non-standard 'gun culture' English for the title of this article, when reasonable standard English options exist? SaltyBoatr 15:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question still not answered. For instance the standard English term Hunting implement is widely used[6] and suitable as a title to the article. SaltyBoatr 16:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, how does the OED define 'combat'? While you're at it, look up allegory. You may be surprised to learn that the random house definition is not an allegory in any way. An allegory can be considered a drawn out metaphor, but the wordnet definition is in no way metaphorical or allegorical. Once again, I'd like to see your definition for 'combat'.--LWF 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killing with satire? One does not literally kill with satire. LWF, you still haven't answered my question. Have you actually read the OED definition of the word 'weapon'? It seems not, and if not, then please do read it so we can actually discuss what it says. SaltyBoatr 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it odd that you claim that all of the Government regulation usages, state law usages, federal law usagess, etc., as well as usages in international newspapers, magazines, books, and an assortment of other native English-speaking sources are somehow all invalid sources and are together collectively misusing the English language, since, collectively, these are the very sources that the OED attempts to research to categorize evolving English language usage. Gun culture has nothing to do with this popular usage directly; rather, hunting weapon is simply a widely-used and well-understood expression which appears in many English language sources. Hunting weapon is standard English, as evidenced by the rather wide usage that has been noted previously in (lengthy) discussions. One point, though, which version of the OED are you insisting should be the sole arbiter of proper English usage? Yaf 05:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have never actually identified these multiple sources which you claim prove your point, and now which you describe falsely as being 'noted previously'. Only three have been identified above: 1) One proposed US regulation. {Please explain why a proposed local regulation is meaningful in a global article.} 2) One Random House definition, containing allegory. 3) One passage in a book about warfare.

The OED version I am using is the latest, OED Online, made available online through the website of my local library which I see is constantly updated as they identify new words and word usages. Here is their sourcing explanation: The online Oxford English Dictionary is a work in progress. Hundreds of new entries are added every year. The OED is currently being revised, with the aim of producing a completely updated third edition. Draft material from the revision programme is published online, alongside unrevised entries from the 20-volume Second Edition, first published in 1989, and its 3-volume Additions Series, published in 1993 (volumes 1 and 2) and 1997 (volume 3).

You describe this a 'the sole arbiter', and I do not. Yet, it is an extremely authoritative secondary source on English language usage, and the best secondary source yet identified in our discussion. Your original research based on your personal style of English usage, and your Google searches looking for usages of the term that match your own do not carry nearly the same weight. SaltyBoatr 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End the nonsense

Hunting weapon is a commonly-used expression often appearing in formally-written English. For example, consider additionally the following international examples of the use of “hunting weapon“ in English language sources:

Enough is enough. Lets stop this nonsense and end the POV pushing that weapons are only used for combat or in warfare. Not all weapons are used solely in combat or warfare. Not all weapons used for hunting are firearms. Not all weapons used for hunting are primitive weapons. Not all weapons used for hunting are even listed in this article. So what? Lets stop the inane, nonsensical discussions and return to productive editing for improving Wikipedia content. Yaf 19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your original research of the usage of the term does not carry the same weight as the Oxford English Dictionary. What is wrong with the title Hunting Implement? It would communicate exactly the same meaning and would be unambiguously standard English. I do not dispute that the term 'hunting weapon' is widely used, as your searching has confirmed. I just dispute that it is standard English. Your Google searching does not disprove the OED. The issue at stake is the credibility of the encyclopedia. When readers see the use of non-standard English, our credibility suffers. SaltyBoatr 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the brunt of your argument is that the OED is the only source of so-called Standard English. Somehow, I think a great many people would disagree with this. The logic of your argument is that Random House, WordNet, Webster, American Heritage, and anything else that isn't a verbatim copy of the OED is wrong. You keep saying that the Random House definition is allegorical, because it doesn't involve death, but the Random House definition just says "used against" not "used to kill". A document can serve as a weapon in politics just to present one example, and weapon has been used in that context before. And one more thing, I have never tried to prove the OED wrong, I just think that these other definitions are also correct.--LWF 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand me and misstate my point. The OED definition does not conflict with the dictionary definitions you have identified, none of which mention 'hunting'. (Wordnet is not a dictionary.) The OED definition does conflict with a hunting usage of the word 'weapon'. The OED carries a great deal of authority. The question which you repeatedly ignore is: Why use non-standard English when good standard English option exist? I answer your questions, and you ignore my questions. This is a poor way to seek out consensus. SaltyBoatr 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them mention hunting, but they can very clearly be applied to hunting. Although here's a question for you: why are all of these dictionaries and sources not Standard English?--LWF 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you evaded my question, wasting our time. And, no obviously, they (all) cannot be applied to hunting. You choose to ignore the most influential dictionary, the OED. That is another question you evade: Have you read the OED definition? Would you do so please so we can discuss the etymology of the word. I believe that standard English involves respecting that words have a history use, and the OED documents that history as it evolves. The OED does not recognize the modern use you favor. The OED carries a very large authority regarding standard English. Now, please answer my questions. SaltyBoatr 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to regale us with the OED definition of weapon then?--LWF 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear it would be a copyright violation to cut and paste it here. The OED definition of the word 'weapon' contains 2,700 words and spans five pages. It is easy to look up in a library, I bet that your local library has free online access for you to use. SaltyBoatr 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about I post the concise definition from my recent purchase: the Oxford Dictionary of Current English? Because that dictionary makes no mention of combat, instead it says used or designed to caused physical damage or injury, or to gain an advantage. This being published by Oxford, I think this definition is suitable for staking the claim that "hunting weapon" is Standard English. It is from Oxford after all.--LWF 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between the Oxford English Dictionary (which is vastly more comprehensive) from the smaller Oxford Dictionary of English. I don't know much about the Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Also, I see that you have paraphrased the definition and I question if you paraphrased accurately. Have you read the OED definition yet so we can discuss the etymology? SaltyBoatr 14:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to request for comment on LoCE board: "hunting weapon" is an extremely common phrase, and what leaps to mind when I hear it is "spear > bow > gun". However, this article isn't exactly about hunting weapons. A short section at the end titled "Primitive hunting weapons" doesn't change it: this article is about guns. Ideally, there would be one article (hunting weapons) about weapons used for hunting in general, and another (this one) about firearms used for hunting. — Demong _talk 04:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious if your opinion is based upon reading the OED definition? It appears that your opinion, is based on your personal experience with slang English. Again, I do not dispute that 'hunting weapon' is a common expression. I just observe that it is not a form of English documented by the Oxford English Dictionary, and that the OED carries a very large amount of authority. Further, reasonable standard English alternate title(s) exist, so I see no reason to keep using a non-standard English title regardless if it is common slang. SaltyBoatr 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I paraphrased to avoid plagiarism but since you insist, "1. a thing designed or used to cause physical harm or damage. 2. a means of gaining an advantage or defending yourself." Sorry about forgetting defense in my paraphrase. Now, I would like to point out one thing, when Oxford University Press decided to put together the Dictionary of Current English; its compilers came to Weapon and when they defined it, out of the vast number of definitions they had to choose from, they used the best definition they had access to, that wouldn't take up huge amounts of space. And at the moment, I am seriously doubtful of what the OED actually says, as you say the definition is five pages long, somehow I think that tucked away in it somewhere is the definition in current usage, not the one people used to use. I also wonder what gives you the authority to just come into a debate and declare that the OED, which most people don't have access to, is the only dictionary acceptable for Wikipedia. That claim personally sounds like original research, as their is little or no way of really backing it up.--LWF 16:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. You cite from the Oxford Dictionary of Current English which you recently purchased[7], but I see that the Oxford University Press does not publish a dictonary with that title. Please explain. By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary is easily available and almost everybody has access. Have you tried your local library? Indeed, most local library systems offer online access to the OED from the library's website. The OED's lengthy coverage for the word 'weapon' addresses the history of the meanings of the word, and the history does not include hunting usages. I do not deny that, in the very recent times, slang usage has come to include hunting. But, I argue that the title of this article should not use slang. SaltyBoatr 17:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to look closer, because I have it right in front of me, and it says it was published by Oxford University Press. Try adding fourth edition into your search. Although I will also add that frequently slang becomes part of the language, and becomes accepted. Take a look at Shakespeare, he outright made up words, some of which are still in use today (although we don't always realize it). And also, I don't have a local library, the last one was poor beyond belief and got torn down. The closest is miles away and I have no way of knowing before I go if they have the OED.--LWF 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this site, [8]. OUP does publish it.--LWF 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try calling your library on the telephone. Also consider another library, in many states the residency requirement is very liberal. I heard that anybody in the world can get a New York City library card for instance. I agree that slang can become part of the language, and in this case, per the OED a hunting definition of weapon has not yet. Therefore the question is why use slang when standard English options exist. Does your dictionary cover the etymology of the word weapon? SaltyBoatr 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that any definition published in any Oxford Dictionary would come from or be included in the online version. By the way, it doesn't quite cover etymology, closest it comes to etymology is stating that it is of Old English origin.--LWF 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again that you check the 2,700 word entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. The 27 word entry at www.askoxford.com is lacking in detail. When you check the OED etymology of the word you see that the vastly overwhelming usage is in context of fighting, warfare or combat. Hunting is not fighting. The OED entry (1.c) does allow for figurative usages, similar to the allegorical usage you found in Random House, but again I ask the question which you repeatedly ignore: Why use a slang, figurative or allegorical term in the title when a standard English option exists? SaltyBoatr 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring it, I just think that their is ample evidence that hunting weapon is Standard English. I dispute that the Random House is allegorical, as the example isn't really part of the definition, and when the example says deadly, it doesn't specify deadly to what, and there is also one last thing, there can be a difference between how something is used in a language and what it means. Weapon may be used more frequently in the context of warfare, but that doesn't mean that is the only proper usage.

At the moment though, this debate is going nowhere, so would you be willing to accept mediation in this dispute? I think it might be able to end this dispute in a manner that will hopefully leave all parties satisfied.--LWF 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation? Perhaps yes, but I suspect that we don't agree on what is at dispute. If we don't, what is to mediate? The dispute (as I see it) is: Should respect the authority of the OED with regard to determining standard English? How we can learn what is standard English without checking an authoritative etymology? The best source of that etymology is the OED, yet you can't or won't read the OED. Is mediation necessary to convince you to read the OED definition? SaltyBoatr 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find a way, but it could be a while. Could you please refrain from moving the article in that time?--LWF 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you will read the OED definition. Quantify 'a while'. Though, you have never expressed a reason for your opposition to another title. On its face, the title Hunting implements seems totally accurate, neutral and satisfactory. Or, as suggested by user Demong above, the article is really most significantly about Hunting firearms. The reason for your opposition is obscure. SaltyBoatr 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting weapons to me is the most descriptive title, and has no theoretically misleading connotations. Although I will say this, if it must be moved, I think hunting implements would be the best place. Tools just doesn't have the right connotation if you ask me. A while means a week or two, as I am rather busy at the moment.--LWF 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple telephone call, or quick visit with your local librarian could probably get you access to the OED online in minutes. Have you asked? I disagree that 'weapons' 'has no theoretically misleading connotations'. It is a very misleading use of the word in context of 'hunting' and I have provided authoritative sourcing of this fact with the etymology found in the OED. I respect that, in your personal usage of English this may not be the case, but Wikipedia should be based on non-personal standards, and the OED is a very powerful authority and standard. SaltyBoatr 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that I don't have time to get to a local library, I'm too busy. I'll try and get access soon, but it may be a week or two.--LWF 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting weapons are what all state, federal, and international hunting laws regulate. They do not regulate "hunting implements". "Hunting implements" is clearly non-standard English for referring to weapons used in hunting. We should not create non-standard English terminology for what is already well defined and commonly used, the OED notwithstanding. Similar to LWF, I do not have access to the OED. The local libraries neither have it nor do they even permit unfettered access to the Internet, for fear that some child might accidently see something that is inappropriate, but I digress. I agree that Wikipedia should be based on non-personal standards, and it is. But, claiming that only the OED provides the sole and proper standards is patently false. It is also not a policy requirement by any of Wikipedia's policies that only the OED may be used as a source for writing articles on Wikipedia. Yaf 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. A quick Google search[9] finds that Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Ohio, Australia and Canada all have regulations of 'hunting implements'. The OED is a very powerful authority that trumps your personal research. Have you asked your librarian if he/she can help you find online access to the OED? Tell me the name of your local library and I will try to intervene for you. SaltyBoatr 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but hunting implements are something entirely different than hunting weapons. See:

Hunting implements are not the same thing as hunting weapons, and, no, they are not themselves directly regulated in most areas. Hunting implements include such things as blaze orange hunting vests, blaze orange ballcaps, survival kits, snakebite kits, and other hunting tools that are sometimes required for hunting certain areas, or when hunting for certain species. During small game seasons in the South East, for example, wearing blaze orange is not required. (Not many people look like nutrias.) The hunting regulations do not typically regulate hunting implements themselves, unlike for weapons which are severely regulated (no more than 5 rounds in semi-automatic rifles, no more than 3 rounds in shotguns, broadhead arrows must be 7/8-inch or larger, etc.), but instead just require the use of hunting implements in adequate quantities (i.e., wearing at least 500 square inches of blaze orange, for example, during deer season, having one snakebite kit per person when in rattlesnake-infested primitive wildlife management areas (WMAs), but not specifying which brand of kit to buy, etc.) As for the library, they only have dial-up and the modem keeps the one phone line busy with the one computer. You won't get through. (I don't have the librarian's cell phone number; I doubt I could get that for you, anyway :-) And, no, they don't have access to the OED there, as I mentioned before, for fear I suppose that some kid will look up a naughty word. Not everyone lives in civilized California, you know. Yaf 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for sarcasm. Also, spare us the original research. The OED is a powerful credible authority, and you are asking us to take your personal research instead. I doubt your life is so primitive that you do not have online access to some library somewhere. Have you asked your librarian? You might also try KYVL.SaltyBoatr 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm intended. I personally know no one that resembles a nutria, especially not with their orange teeth. Also, no original research on my part at all is contained in the cited websites with their usages of "hunting weapons" and not "hunting implements" as representing standard English worldwide. Likewise, I would never live in any locale that doesn't respect the Bill of Rights; it is rather condescending to call my life primitive just because I happen to live in a more free locale than you apparently do, and one which still happens to use dial-up access for public libraries and many private ISP accounts just simply because it is harder to justify installing high-speed access in areas with less population density than where you happen to live. As for asking the librarian, yes, I did, but she said that they have subscribed to no online services other than the one dial-up account used for providing general Internet access. As for the website you mention, I looked at it, but it appears one has to be a student living in that particular state, taking classes there, to take advantage of it, so that is not an option. So, the question arises, why do you advocate using the rather inaccessible OED, which you can't quote from here, but which you claim is a powerful credible authority, as the sole standard for determining proper English usage in America? If anything, it appears that the OED does not meet WP:V, if it is not available. Yaf 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary is widely available and quoting Page 511 of AB Bookman's Weekly, 1999: "The Oxford English Dictionary is the most authoritative and comprehensive dictionary of English in the world, and the definitive record of English language" and most certainly meets WP:V. Your claim[10] that 'hunting weapons are entirely different than hunting implements' is plainly your original research. You are wrong about the KYVL being restricted to students, everyone who holds a Kentucky library card is eligible to access that site. You ask about proper English usage in America?, yet this is an English language global encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 04:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that Kentucky library cards are not issued to non-residents living outside Kentucky, as the website says that you must visit your local Kentucky library or be a Kentucky student to obtain a library card. So that is not an option. As for the value of the OED in defining "hunting weapon", the OED is not verifiable at the present time. For that reason, I still do not consider this to be a proper cite in accordance with WP:V guidelines. A reference must be accessible to truly be verifiable; otherwise, although a reference may be reliable, but is not verifiable, it probably should not be used as a reference for Wikipedia. You need to find a verifiable reference. I have suggested Webster. LWF has suggested other dictionaries. Whatever you choose, the reference needs to be both reliable and verifiable. The OED is not presently verifiable, and so should not be used. Yaf 04:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What state do you live in? SaltyBoatr 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually at the moment the OED is the least verifiable source. For all we know you could be lying about it, and since we don't have access we can't double check it. Plus, we have more evidence that Hunting weapon is Standard English. We have an Oxford dictionary documenting how they currently use English, Random House (by the way, look up allegory before saying it again,), WordNet (which derives from Princeton), Websters, American Heritage, and Kernerman. On the other hand, your evidence that it is not Standard English comes from the (supposed) non-inclusion of a definition in the OED, which I've come to doubt considering how Oxford has published a dictionary with a definition supporting a hunting usage. Could you perhaps look closely through the OED using your access and see if they've added to it, maybe including the definition from their Dictionary of Current English. It's been out for a year now, so they should've included it by now.--LWF 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and accessibility discussion

I maintain that the OED meets WP:V, LWF and Yaf do not. You may want to join in the ongoing discussion of this at: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Accessibility.3F SaltyBoatr 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is relative.

I point out that under WP:V, reliability is relative[11], and that the exhaustive 20 volume authoritative Oxford English Dictionary trumps the shorter less authoritative dictionaries. SaltyBoatr 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I point out that we can't verify that what you are saying is true. It's not the dictionary's verifiability we question, it is your citation from it that can't verify.--LWF 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't verify? Just yesterday you said[12] that you 'will try to find a way', now you say you can't. SaltyBoatr 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we can not verify.--LWF 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider asking User:Pmanderson below, who seems to have had no trouble accessing the OED[13], having just looked at the OED definition of 'to hunt'. SaltyBoatr 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked, and I am told that one of the uses relates to hunting as lion. I though I was told none related to hunting.--LWF 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given SB's deprecation of poetry, I should add that this is a quotation from Chaucer, "With-outen wepene saue his handes tweyne He slow and al torente the leon." from Weapon, citing Monk's Tale. l. 34. However, saying the OED is not verifiable because it's not free on line is novel doctrine; we are not a web compilation service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only deprecate poetry because I am looking for the literal, not figurative, use of the word. Poetry tends to be figurative. Also, I see the OED definition of weapon involves 'combat or warfare'. The use of a weapon in defense of an animal attack, such as from a lion, makes sense per the OED definition. Defending oneself against an animal attack is akin to combat. Hunting is something else, not combat or warfare. SaltyBoatr 17:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OED

SaltyBoater might have looked at "hunting" while he was consulting the OED; he would have found the following: wearing neither hunting-dress/Nor weapon from Tennyson. Really, the OED cannot be expected to list every combination of noun and adjective possible in English; all this means is that the phrase is

not hyphenated,
its meaning is deducible from its constituents.

Regards,, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have actually consulted the OED on the definition of hunting. It is hard to know what to make of your Tennyson quote, which you truncate with resultant distortion. The line actually reads: "Nor weapon save golden-hilted brand". Brand, meaning a burning torch. I see that as poetry, falling into the figurative realm, and while interesting not really relative to the literal meaning of the term in question. SaltyBoatr 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote as much as the OED does; and link to the whole. I disagree; Tennyson is using brand as a kenning for "sword", as is not uncommon; a torch, however fancy, is only a weapon by extension. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pray observe, some lines later, that Geraint's "quick, instinctive hand Caught at the hilt, as to abolish him"; it's difficult to abolish even a dwarf with a torch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like poetry and is using figurative language. How is a sword a hunting implement? One does not hunt with a sword. Swords are combat weapons. The question is, considering that 'hunting weapon' does not appear to be standard English, but rather is a minor variant of English commonly used by the Gun culture: Should Wikipedia use gun culture English when standard English options exist? SaltyBoatr 15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that it is "gun culture English" other than this somewhat frayed argumentum ab silentio? Louis Leakey wrote about the bola as a "hunting weapon" in East Africa in 1948; and the Blackmore in the notes is originally a British book from 1971; are they gun culture too? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grant that I lack evidence for the label 'gun culture', but that is not relevant. I am attempting to advocate for the usage of worldwide English in Wikipedia versus variant English. I do have strong support for my argument, in that the Oxford English Dictionary is well respected, authoritative and has devoted an enormous amount of research to document worldwide English usage. At this time, the OED does not recognize a usage of the word 'weapon' consistent with a 'hunt'.

Further, as you and others point out, there can easily be found instances of the usage of the term 'hunting weapon'. So many usages that I predict that someday the OED will add that meaning to their exhaustive dictionary. When that day comes, I will change my opinion on whether 'hunting weapon' is recognized as worldwide English. In the meantime, it is a variant usage. SaltyBoatr 18:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not insist on "worldwide English"; although it is clear that "hunting weapon" is used both by Britons and by Americans. It is contrary to the manual of style to do so. Write when you have some evidence for your position; in fact, entering a move request at WP:RM would draw the attention of editors not involved with this article or subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britanica

It seems the EB recognises the term... see their entry on "bow and arrow" here. Blueboar 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the whole sentence, the bow and arrow serves a dual use, both for hunting and for warfare. Again, I don't dispute that a subset of English uses 'hunting weapon'. But in standard English 'hunting implement' conveys the same meaning and is a more universal usage of English. Wikipedia is global and when possible should use the more universal usage. SaltyBoatr 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boots are a hunting implement, as are tree stands, binoculars, and a host of other items that are not directly used for killing game, and are not in the scope of the article. What about non-lethal weapon or less lethal weapon, or the legal terms dangerous weapon and deadly weapon? Are those all invalid because they don't relate to use in combat? scot 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, if given a choice between standard English and general usage English, I will go with general usage, because in this case, Hunting weapon just makes more sense. Hunting equipment, tools, and implements just sounds like the peripharies of hunting, not the actual firearms or weapons used.--LWF 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line here is: How do we determine what is general English? Do we take a vote? Or, do we look it up in the best available dictionaries? SaltyBoatr 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General use--dictionaries are descriptive, not definitive, and are often neither complete nor timely. As for what is "general English", that is far harder to define; for example, I was just recently got an e-mail from a friend in the UK describing an Alfa Romeo engine as sounding "frutier than a gay strawberry"--a phrase that does NOT translate well into American idom (I dare you to go up to the next mullet sporting American redneck Camero driver that you see and tell him his car sounds fruity). On the other hand, I can easily point to sources in the UK that deal with "weapon" in a non-military sense--just search on "weapon" and "air gun" and "britain" and see how many BBC hits you get. Newspapers are often the best source for finding the current usage of words and phrases (such as the new verb "to Swift Boat", which I first encountered today). Magazines and trade publications are a good source for more esoteric technical terms. Laws also are, in this case, a good source for definitions of terms, as there are many laws regulating weapons--whether for combat, self defense, or hunting. Take a look though the OED's etymology, and (if they provide references for the etymology) you'll see that the OED is a tertiary source, often referencing newspapers, magazines, and books in the etymologies. scot 19:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OED is hardly a 'general use dictionary'. Also, from the perspective of study of word usages in the world, the document in which the word is found (the book, newspaper, etc.) is the primary, and the OED is the secondary source. Similarly, when you do Google searches to find favorable usages of the term 'hunting weapon', you are acting as a secondary researcher. SaltyBoatr 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think that it won't be long before the OED adds the definition from the Dictionary of Current English. After all, they published it. Although if we are talking about current general use, the Oxford Dictionary of Current English at least purports to document current English and seems like a good source.--LWF 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the best source? The OED is considered the best by many experts. SaltyBoatr 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be the best if it's definition of "weapon" is clearly flawed and at odds with current worldwide usage? Your constant insistence that the OED is the only source acceptable source of defining the use of standard English, and rejection of any other source, appears to me to be a violation of the NPOV policy. I don't care how many experts say the OED is the best, any single source can have errors and omissions, so multiple sources are essential, and multiple independent sources have been provided that use the phrase "hunting weapon" in the same context as this article. scot 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception of 'current worldwide usage' has the appearance of being based on personal opinion. Further, I see no surprise that several people who are active editors, like you with a 'gun' history of edits[14], believe that their own English usage equals 'current worldwide usage'. This calls attention to the problem of systemic bias found in Wikipedia. Your arbitrary denigration of the Oxford English Dictionary, "I don't care how many experts say" runs contrary to Wikipedia policy of WP:V. My evaluation of the credibility of the OED is based on a reading of the verifiable expert opinions that the OED is widely respected. SaltyBoatr 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my opinion of 'current worldwide usage' is based on observation. For example:

Princeton WordNet explicitly defines "weapon" in terms of hunting (and you still haven't said why a lexical database isn't a valid source)
A "how to disarm America" article, US source using the term "hunting weapon"
A BBC Science & Nature article on Neanderthals, using the term "hunting weapon"
Australian touring company, talking about the boomarang as a "hunting weapon"
A New Zealand statue using the term "hunting weapon"
A Canadian article on the Firearms Act, using the term "hunting weapon"

Those references show the term "hunting weapon" in current use in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, by sportsmen, gun control advocates and opponents, legislatures, scientists, and shows a group of Princeton lexicographers defining "weapon" as applying to hunting. All of this should be proof that the OED is incompletely defining "weapon". The systemic bias you accuse me of in this case just means I know the subject matter at hand--I've worked in the industry, I'm familiar with it, and I know what the terminology means and how people use it. There is no other word in the English language today that you can pair up with "hunting" to get the exact breadth and precision of meaning encompassed by the term "hunting weapon", covering spears, airguns, firearms, boomerangs, bows, and atlatls. The only other option I see is to move the article to Things people use to kill animals whilst hunting them, and that's just a bit wordy for my taste. scot 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you can do Google searches and find usages matching your variant of English, like you have done. Still, that is personal research. Your personal research does not carry the same weight of authority as the Oxford English Dictionary. What is wrong with Hunting implements? It does a pretty good job of communicating the point while at the same time using a more worldwide version of English. SaltyBoatr 16:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hunting implement" is far too ambiguous. A blaze orange vest, or chemical handwarmers, or shooting mittens are all just as much hunting implements as a rifle. And my "personal research" just shows that the descriptive OED is incomplete. It's also inconsistent with the other OED publications. These are taken from the Compact OED, accessible online without a subscription:

huntverb 1 pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food.
weaponnoun 1 a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

So a weapon (designed or use for inflicting bodily harm) used to hunt (pursue and kill a wild animal for sport or food) would, but the standard practice of making adjectives from nows, would be a hunting weapon. Since the OED and the Compact OED come from the same source, they should be of equal validity on terms that both contain. scot 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason the article cannot include sections on hunting implements of significant types, though mittens and hand warmers are trivial; hunting dogs, hunting safety equipment or hunting horses are significant and could be included in this article along with hunting firearms, etc.. Considering that the adjective hunting means 'to pursue', there is no reason to make a distinction for killing that I can see. SaltyBoatr 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very large difference in weight between the Oxford English Dictionary and the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, specifically in the coverage of the history of the usage of the word. This is a key issue, in that the usage you advocate is a modern usage not worldwide and not yet recognized by the Oxford English Dictionary. I point out that Compact OED does not conflict with the OED definition. The real conflict is that your variant English usage conflicts with the OED (but not with the the shortened definition found in the Compact OED). It appears you hope to ignore the OED so as to push your point. By the way, have you actually read the OED definition? If not, it would be helpful if you did so we can discuss it. By the way, you misused the dictionary (with apparent intent to push your point) by citing the verb 'to hunt' when you should have cited the noun. SaltyBoatr 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Publications have no authority; it is the authors of said publications that have the authority, as is clear in the etymology of authority, Old French autorite, from Latin auctor ‘originator’. Since the OED and the COED have the same author, Oxford University Press, then they must have the same authority on any words cited in both editions. As for my use of the definitions, yes, I am quoting only ONE definition of "weapon", because it is the relevant one. A single use of a word only fits one definition of the word; if I say my hunting weapon is hot, I mean produces a sensation of uncomfortable heat (definition 2), not that it is showing signs of intense lust (definition 3). I am using the verb tense of "hunt" because that is the tense used by the COED when defining phrases such as hunting crop, ...used chiefly in hunting. If you want the noun, then fine: hunt noun 1 an act or the process of hunting.

But in the end, what the OED says isn't really relevant to this discussion. This is not an article about the word "weapon", this is an article about items that are universally called weapons. If I were to start an article about kit guns, the usage almost certainly wouldn't match any of the definition of "kit" in the OED. However, it is a well defined term in the industry, applied to a set of easily delineated firearms, and that's what matters. scot 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write 'in the industry' which begs the question. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia of the gun industry, or an encyclopedia of the world? Please answer. SaltyBoatr 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the English speaking world, with the caveat that many articles must use jargon to avoid ambiguity. For example, the title Gastroesophageal reflux disease is not a commonly encountered English term (being, in fact, mostly Latin), but it is the proper medical jargon for a certain form of heartburn; moving the article to heartburn would make it more easily found, but it would not be correct, as gastroesophageal reflux (a physical disorder) is not the only cause of heartburn (a symptom). Likewise, hunting implement is overly broad and not a correct title for the article, applying to anything used in hunting. scot 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Hunting implement overly broad? You give no reason. Certainly the article could cover firearms, like you want; and still have room for coverage of other related types of hunting implements. What harm would come of that? You seem to be avoiding an obvious, harmless and easy compromise. SaltyBoatr 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I should have written 'the editors of the OED have great authority'. And, they do have more authority than an individual editor of Wikipedia like you or me. You claim your English usage is 'universal', but you lack the authority of the editors of the OED. I take it by your evasion of my question: Have you read the OED definition? ...to mean that you have not. Could you read it please so we can constructively discuss what it says? Thanks. SaltyBoatr 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to a copy of the unabridged OED, so I have not read the definition in THAT VERSION of the OED. All I have is what is available online, which is the Compact OED, third edition. The third eidtion, by the way, claims to be a "Major new edition, offering comprehensive and authoritative coverage of current English", with a publication date of June 2005, and a history of biannual revisions^[2]. The full OED, second edition, on the other hand, dates to 1989, so the Compact edition appears to be the most up-to-date edition of the OED available. If you would like to quote the relevant sections of the OED 2 definition, that would be fine, but again, the shared authorship makes the COED equally authoritative, in addition to being more current, so I see no point in using an obsolete definition. scot 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between the Compact OED and the OED. Do you have a library card? It is very common for libraries to make the OED available online to their library patrons. Until you read the OED definition, discussing it with you can hardly be productive. No the COED is not equally authoritative to the OED if the question involves evolution of the history of usage of the word, as we have here. The OED is the better dictionary for that purpose. SaltyBoatr 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what the OED says is STILL not the point--I don't care about how "weapon" was used in the 16th century, I care about how it's used now, so etymological information is not of use here. Do you accept that the COED definition of weapon as "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage" is correct and reflects common usage? scot 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison this is definition 1.a. quoting from the OED: " 1. a. An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy." Viewed in context of the full 2,700 word OED entry describing the continuum of usages of the word 'weapon', I favor the OED definition as carrying more weight. I see the COED definition #1, which you quote, to be consistent with the OED definition, and I accept them both. The problem I have is that the COED coverage of the word consists of a paltry two sentences and twenty-two words. This creates ambiguity, which you exploit to push your POV. The OED coverage spans six pages and contains 2700 words, and is much less ambiguous. SaltyBoatr 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the definition you cite SaltyBoatr is not the only definition, what are the others? There is one other thing that I find telling: the fact that when it came time to condense all the definitions from the OED into a smaller number of concise accurate definitions they said, "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage". This implies that they think that is the best definition possible while still being concise. Besides, you just said that you accept them both, meaning you believe both to be correct, and if their both correct, why do you still oppose the article being named Hunting weapon.--LWF 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered your questions earlier which you repeat again. You are reading into the ambiguity of the shorter definition, to advance your POV. I favor reading the dictionaries together to get the full picture. You prefer to selectively choose the dictionary you find useful to advance your POV. As to the full OED definitions, please read the OED (this conversation is a waste of time until you do so.) I already summarized the other OED definitions before; they are the figurative, the transferred, and the vulgar definitions of the word. SaltyBoatr 00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous mainstream sources (dictionaries, newspapers, magazines, state hunting regulations, province hunting regulations, international hunting regulations, etc.) all have been shown to use the terminology hunting weapon. I strongly suspect that even the OED does in its 2,700 word definition, especially since the Compact OED does, but that you simply have not permitted this interpretation in your reading to date of the OED. As has been pointed out by several others on the Verifiability discussion associated in parallel with this discussion, dictionaries are not the best sources for determining usages of words. Etymologies do not enter into this discussion, either, as this article is not about 15th Century usages of the word weapon, or 11th Century usages of the word weapon. (I would point out that Caxton only started standardising English in the late 15th Century, so tracing the use of the word weapon prior to written English is a bit of a stretch, anyway.) As for the vulgar usages, using the Shakespearean meaning of vulgar to mean the common uses, and not the OED-cited instances of profane which perhaps you intended as a bad pun, the common worldwide usage is clearly hunting weapon and not hunting implement. It is not advancing one's POV to take the common usage of a word. Instead, it is advancing one's POV to insist that somehow the usage in Beowulf should govern modern-day English. Well, it doesn't. Although I enjoy Olde English and middle English as much as anyone (personally, I like Chaucer over some of the others; for it is bawdier, although Njal's Saga and the other Icelandic sagas are more action-packed :-), the ancient usage of the word weapon is not relevant to an article on today's common usage. If you wish to write an article on historical meanings of the word weapon in Old and Middle English, go for it. Meanwhile, such etymologies are not relevant to this article, based on modern day English usage of Hunting weapon. Yaf 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rhetorical trick to misstate an opponents position, please stop. Your presumptions about my reading of the Oxford English Dictionary are way off base, please instead assume good faith. I find your assertion that 'dictionaries are not the best sources for determining the usages or words' to be simply astonishing. What is the purpose of a dictionary then? You instead advocate, (only when you are confronted with dictionary definitions you don't like), for doing original research using Google searches to find usages more to your liking. Can I say the obvious? It appears that you view me as an bitter opponent in some great gun rights battle. Stop. Let's just be friendly co-editors of Wikipedia, please. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ See dictionary; "Large 20th-century dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Webster's Third are descriptive, and attempt to describe the actual use of words."
^ http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198610229&view=ask

Recent change in article format

I just made a rather drastic change to the article so I felt I should explain it. My decision to move the Primitive hunting section up was to make the article more chronological, as the old way seemed a little strange to me when read having the weapons that came first in time coming last in the article. Also in the sections on firearms I changed the titles from weapon to firearm, as the sections in question were specifically about firearms and it made more sense to have them listed as firearms. If anyone doesn't agree with these changes let's discuss a compromise for the article.--LWF 02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an improvement, and meets WP:Be bold, too! Good ideas, and good implementation. Yaf 04:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new introduction

The introduction paragraph seems to be lacking in clarity and conciseness. Here's some proposed changes. Irrelevant stuff is left out (how popular hunting is is relevant to hunting, but not hunting weapons) and stuff that is not readily verifiable (such as relative popularity of weapons) has been dropped.

First paragraph--short and to the point, delineate the category:

Hunting weapons are weapons designed or used primarily for hunting game animals for food or sport, as distinct from defensive weapons and weapons used in warfare.

New section: Characteristics

Since human beings are lacking in the natural weapons possessed by other predators, humans have a long history of making tools to overcome this shortcoming. The evolution of hunting weapons shows an ever increasing ability to extend the hunter's reach, while maintaining the ability to produce disabling or lethal wounds, allowing the hunter to capture the game.

The spear was in use for hunting 400,000 years ago, and its usage may go back millions of years (reference, spear). The spear gave the hunter the ability to kill large animals, at ranges as far as the hunter could throw the spear; the Roman pilum, for example, had a range of 30 meters (100 feet) (reference, pilum). The atlatl, a device for throwing a spear, extended that range even further by giving the hunter leverage to throw the spear faster and farther. The atlatl allowed a skilled user to throw a dart up to 100 meters (110 yards). Archaeological evidence of the atlatl has been found on all continents except for Antarctica. (reference, atlatl) The atlatl was displaced starting in the late Paleolithic with the easier to make and use bow and arrow, which remains in common use today in both sporting and hunting. With the advent of accurate, reliable firearms, firearms became the weapon of choice. (find stats on bow and firearm use in hunting) Each new evolution of hunting weapons extended the range and accuracy; a skilled hunter, with suitable equipment and good conditions, can take game at ranges of over 1000 yards (910 meters). (reference, Lilja)

New section:Usage and regulations

Hunting weapons are typically regulated by game category, area within the state, and time period. Regulations for big game hunting often specify a minimum caliber or muzzle energy for firearms. The use of rifles is often banned for safety reasons in areas with high population density, limited topographic relief, or for hunting on bodies of water where the danger of ricochet exists. Specific seasons for bow hunting or muzzle-loading black powder guns are often established to limit competition with hunters using more effective firearms. (find sources)

(remove non-relevant statistics)

Comments welcome--if there's no objection, I'll look for some references as needed and stick this in tomorrow. scot 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.--LWF 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title and scope

SaltyBoatr has proposed a change in article title and scope, to hunting implement, and to cover any or all items used in hunting. Here are my thoughts on that.

Human beings are pretty useless when it comes to being a predator--we're slow, our teeth are a poor hybrid of plant and meat eater, and our fingernails are a joke, and our senses are dull. The only natural weapon that humans have are their brains. We don't use our teeth and nails, we use sharp stones and bits of metal; we don't rely on our speed to run down prey, we put it into projectiles that travel faster than any animal can run; we don't use our meager sense of smell to track prey, but rather use our intelligence to learn its behavior and anticipate its movement. Of all the forms of hunting I'm aware of, there is one constant, and that is a weapon (the one possible exception, noodling, I would classify as trapping, not hunting; sports such as falconry and fox hunting use trained animals as weapons). No one chooses to go out and run down a deer and rip its throat out with their teeth, they use a spear, or a bow, or a gun, or some other weapon that gives them extended range and killing ability. A weapon is the only constant--all other equipment is optional. Primitive tribes in the South American rain forests still hunt monkeys and other small game with nothing but a blowgun and a loincloth; American Indian tribes hunted with obsidian arrowheads sharper than any steel ever made, due to the ability to get a mono-molecular edge through lithic reduction.

While other equipment is common when hunting, there is no natural limit to what can be included; binoculars, maps, GPS systems, four-wheel drive vehicles, boats, GMRS radios, horses, camouflage, scent maskers, blaze orange markers, none of these are necessary for all forms of hunting. If you wanted to cover other items, they would best be documented on articles on specific types of hunting, where the scope is limited and the requirements are easier to document.

While you could also say that hunting weapons could also be documented in articles on specific types of hunting (and they should be mentioned there), the overall class of hunting weapons is also an important topic. Gun control advocates (at least in the US) are always saying "We don't want to take away your hunting weapons," so it is important to be able to enumerate what types of weapons are used in hunting. scot 14:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that using Wikipedia as a tool in the gun rights battle might be a bad thing? SaltyBoatr 16:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sporting weapon" is often considered pejorative, in that it is a term of art used by gun banners in deciding which weapons to ban. The phrase "hunting weapon", on the other hand, is generally never considered pejorative. "Hunting weapon" is also more factually correct here, in that it implies a weapon used for killing game; sporting weapons, even if not considered pejorative, is a much broader topic. Yaf 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing cause and effect, unless you have proof that politicians reference Wikipedia articles when drafting legislation. Politicians do, however, do things like claim the AR-15 has "no sporting purpose", which it clearly does--in its accurized variants it is a highly capable varmint rifle and it is used in many sporting competitions. Am I supposed to suppress mention of the sporting uses of some firearms because the truth might conflict with someone's political agenda? The political nature of the "sporting purpose" has nothing to do with the neutrality of the article, I mentioned it only to illustrate the importance of the topic. scot 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You evaded my question, I think. If the AR-15 has a sporting purpose, then so do hunting dogs, right? SaltyBoatr 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address this question: May I suggest that using Wikipedia as a tool in the gun rights battle might be a bad thing? You may suggest this, but I think you'll find that your logic may be flawed. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. A general encyclopedia is a comprehensive compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. By substitution, what you are suggesting is using comprehensive information as a tool in the gun rights battle might be a bad thing. This statement I strongly disagree with.

As to the question If the AR-15 has a sporting purpose, then so do hunting dogs, right?, yes, hunting dogs have as sporting purpose. So do sailboats, and ping pong balls, and skis, and countless other items that belong to the category sports equipment. However, the scope of the article is not general sports equipment, rather it is the sub-category sporting_equipment/hunting/weapon. In the case of birds of prey and (I think, thought I'm not sure) fox hounds, the animals in question are hunting weapons, and should be included in the scope of this article--that they are not is merely a reflection of the fact that the article is still evolving and growing. scot 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To restate. There is a disagreement whether 'weapon' when used for hunting is standard English. We could easily resolve this disagreement by calling the article title 'Hunting implement'. This could resolve the dispute easily. Why avoid this easy way to resolve the dispute? Is it because 'hunting dogs' are not used as hunting implements? I don't understand your logic in any other context than that you need this article to be tool in the gun rights battle. If I am wrong, please explain. SaltyBoatr 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the mediator when you need him?--LWF 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion, wisely in hiding :) scot 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll restate too: You said I see the COED definition #1, which you quote, to be consistent with the OED definition, and I accept them both. The COED definition 1 is a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. So it appears to me that any weapon used for hunting is correctly described as a hunting weapon; I see no other interpretation of the phrase, nor do I see any other phrase which provides the same scope. The title hunting implement has a far, far broader scope, as it would cover, just as a random example, boots. Most hunters, I would expect, wear boots, as they are the logical footgear for outdoor activities over rough ground, and in variable weather conditions. However, boots are also used in many other activities--I'm wearing a pair right now, and I'm not hunting. As I have argued above, the weapon is the ONLY item I see as essential for hunting game animals for food or sport. This seems to be a natural level of scope for an article.

As for my alleged political agenda, forget I ever brought up the issue. I will stand on the article's merits as being a relatively clear, concise, and unambiguous classification. Why don't you provide a list of criteria for what you would see included in hunting implements and let's hash that out before we decide; I have no objection to hunting weapon, or weapons used in hunting being a sub-section of an article if you can provide an agreeable set of rules for inclusion. scot 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You evaded my question again. Please reread WP:DR, taking the other person's perspective into account is a key early step towards resolving disputes. SaltyBoatr 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so helpful if you bothered to read the OED definition yourself. Summarizing it; I see it starts with the literal definitions, all related to combat and warfare. Then it covers the figurative, vulgar and trans formative types of definitions. It is these latter three types that are accommodated in the abbreviated 22 word short COED definition you favor. For instance, in the trans formative usages, for instance that a women's tears are her weapon, the COED definition 'a thing designed or used' makes perfect sense. But, not in the literal usage of combat or warfare. When you read both the OED and COED definitions together, this subtlety is clear. Yet you cannot or will not read the OED with the result being that the COED ambiguity serves as a tool for you to push your POV. SaltyBoatr 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I managed to track down access to this OED entry (I had a friend send me a 3-day link to the OED online entry for "weapon"). I will quote definition 1a here--excuse the format, it doesn't paste well, but it's enough to be understandable, I think:

weapon 1. a. An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy. {alpha} Beowulf 1509 Swa he ne mihte no..wæpna {asg}ewealdan. Ibid. 1573 He..wæpen hafenade heard be hiltum. c930 O.E. Chron. an. 917, & a-hreddon eall {th}æt hie {asg}e-numen hæfdon, & eac hira horsa & hira wæpna micelne dæl. c1205 LAY. 6424 Morpidus..seouen hundred of-sloh and swemde mi{edh} wepnen. a1225 Ancr. R. 240 {Th}e {th}et his wepnen worpe{edh} awei, him luste beon iwunded. c1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. Wace (Rolls) 15518 When {th}ey were waxen on elde, Armes to bere, & wepne to welde. 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. III. 304 Alle {th}at bereth baslarde, brode swerde or launce, Axe other hachet or eny wepne ellis. c1386 CHAUCER Monk's T. 34 With-outen wepene saue his handes tweyne He slow and al torente the leon. 1415 HOCCLEVE To Sir J. Oldcastle 471 A clod Of eerthe, at your heedes to slynge or caste, Were wepne ynow. c1511 1st Eng. Bk. Amer. (Arb.) Introd. 28/1 There wepyns is lange pykes and stones ther they caste myghtly with. 1559 Mirr. Mag., Dk. Suffolk xxi, And sum with weapons would have layed on lode. 1610 SHAKES. Temp. II. i. 322 'Tis best we stand vpon our guard..: let's draw our weapons. 1614 RALEGH Hist. World V. iii. §21. 579 The Battels of foote..drew neere together..till they were almost within a weapons cast. 1636 MASSINGER Bashf. Lover I. ii, In a cause like this, The Husbandman would change his ploughing-irons To weapons of defence. 1697 DRYDEN Æneis v. 668 Fix'd in the Mast the feather'd Weapon stands. 1750 GRAY Long Story 39 They hid their armour And veil'd their weapons bright and keen. 1821 BYRON Sardan. II. i, My sword! O fool, I wear no sword: here, fellow, Give me thy weapon. 1859 DICKENS T. Two Cities I. v, Nothing was represented in a flourishing condition, save tools and weapons. 1870 EMERSON Soc. & Solit., Eloquence (end), The Arabian warrior of fame, who wore seventeen weapons in his belt. 1880 Encycl. Brit. XI. 278 The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter. 1902 A. S. HURD How Navy is run 81 There is a roar and a crash as the great 25-ton weapon speaks.^[1]

What I note in this is the reference to the 1880 Ecyclopedia Britannica, which states: The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter. So there we have the phrase sporting weapon, which provides precedent for using the term weapon for something used for attack in a non-combat sense. scot 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, after this argument drawing on far too long due to a failure to communicate, I truly appreciate your cooperation by actually looking at the OED definition. I had missed this nuance; the 1880 usage of 'sporting weapon'. This is fascinating how the meaning evolved at that point in time. It begs the question, just when did firearms first become used for sporting? I am guessing the answer is that sporting use occurred around 1870 or 1880. A similar question exists, when did hunting first become a sport? Probably about this same time. Now, the obvious neutral title for this article, instead of 'hunting implement', I now favor Sporting weapon, based on the User/scot attribution given just above. SaltyBoatr 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting use of firearms far pre-dates that, although organized firearms marksmanship doesn't pre-dated it by much (see Schützenfest, for example) as marksmanship and smoothbore firearms don't really mix well. Hunting for sport pre-dates firearms use by millenia. The early Pharaohs hunted using spears and bows, facilitated by chariots and dogs^[2] (see Pharaoh Hound, named for its resemblance to these ancient hunting dogs depicted in murals in pyramids). Likewise, hunting for sport and food were prevalent prior to 1880, as can be shown by the fact that hastily formed regiments in the Continetal Army and Confederate Army were armed with fowling pieces and squirrel rifles they brought from home.

The reason I restrict the term sporting weapon to hunting is that since the word weapon implies attack, I don't believe that the term weapon really applies to non-living targets; looking at the OED definition for attack I see:

1. a. To fasten or fall upon with force or arms; to join battle with, assail, assault. (The ordinary word to describe offensive military operations.) (1600)
1. b. absol. (a1755)
2. To set upon with hostile action or words, so as to overthrow, injure, or bring into disrepute. (1643)
3. To assail with temptations. (1673)
4. To enter upon a work of difficulty, with the intention of conquering or completing it. (1812)
5. Of disease: To seize upon, begin to affect. (1677)
6. Of physical agents: To begin to act upon destructively, to begin to destroy, devour, waste, decompose, or dissolve. (1842)
7. Mus. intr. and trans. (See quot. and cf. ATTACK n. 7.) (1835)^[1]

Definition 1 goes directly to the military definition, which we've agreed is not applicable in this case. Definition 2 is clearly applicable to hunting, as the intent is to injure the game animal, sufficiently to cause a quick death. Definitions 3, 5, and 7 are not relevant, which leaves us with 4, "To enter upon a work of difficulty" and 6, "To begin to act upon destructively, to begin to destroy, devour, waste, decompose, or dissolve". I think 4 can be rejected, because in target shooting the target is not "a work". Definition 6 is trickier, because shooting obviously damages the target. However, as the purpose of a target is to be shot, that damage doesn't prevent it from fulfilling its purpose, in the same way that you don't say your car "destroys" gasoline, because in the process of burning the gasoline it fulfills its purpose. Now using a firearm for vandalism, such as the popular but illegal practice of shooting holes in rural stop signs, is destructive, and can be considered an attack, but as it is a criminal act, I argue that it is not considered "sporting".

Therefore my suggestion is that since "sporting arm" is an accepted term, quoted by the OED, and since the only "sporting" purpose for which the term "weapon" is appropriate is hunting, the term "hunting weapon" is a clear and unambiguous function equivalent of "sporting weapon". scot 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, after a reading twice, I just don't follow your convoluted logic. Also, I am not aware of what you claim 'we've agreed'. To help me understand you, could you restate your point concisely? SaltyBoatr 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for what we've agreed to, we've agreed that hunting is not combat, as per your statement in the first paragraph of the talk page, where you state Therefore a firearm used in hunting is not a 'weapon'. No combat and not warfare is involved. I agree with the part about combat and warefare not being involved in hunting, and thus definition 1a of attack, dealing with combat, is not relevant to the discussion related to hunting. My argument, in simple steps, is:

Sporting weapon is used by the OED definition 1 of weapon.
COED definition 1 of hunting is pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food
From step 2, hunting encompasses all sports whose intent is to injure or kill an animal
OED definition 1 of weapon as ...An instrument of any kind used ...to attack and overcome... (emphasis my own)
OED definition 2 of attack, To set upon with hostile action or words, so as to overthrow, injure, or bring into disrepute, is applicable to weapon use in the sport of hunting (emphasis my own)
OED definitions 3-7 of attack involve destroying the target of the attack
A target used in a marksmanship competition is not destroyed by use, for the same reason that an automobile is not said to destroy gasoline, therefore defintion 2 of attack is the definition applicable to hunting
Break down sporting into hunting and other sporting in sporting weapons by steps 1 and 2 to get the sets hunting weapons and other sporting weapons
Since we have defined the phrase other sporting weapons to exclude uses involving attacking a live target, the result is that other sporting weapons is the set of weapons which are not used to attack
Since by step 7 the verb attack does not apply to the use on non-living targets, the set of weapons which are not used to attack is self contradictory and therefore empty
Therefore set sporting weapons contains only the elements of the set hunting weapons, and sporting weapon can correctly be replaced by hunting weapon, provide greater clarity by excluding only impossible combinations

scot 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic loses credibility at step 2, when you arbitrarily jump to the COED. Per the OED, 'to hunt' means "To go in pursuit of wild animals or game; to engage in the chase. Also of animals: To pursue their prey.". What is the reason for your fixation on killing? SaltyBoatr 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does logic require a single source for all information? If you want to be picky, you should NEVER use a single source, but rather several independent sources, so as to avoid bias. Assuming we come to a mutually acceptable source for step 2, do you have any other issues with the logic?

And as to the common use of to hunt, I do not claime that all definitions of to hunt involve killing; hunting for an escaped convict or hunting for my car keys for example do not. But, in the context of game animals, such as hunting license, a goal of killing is certainly implied; for example, This license is not required for those who run or chase furbearers with dogs but do not take.^[3] My conduit to the OED is not available right now, but in the meantime might I suggest looking at the definitions for game animal and prey and see if killing is implied in those definitions? If it is, then the OED definition quoted would carry that same implication. scot 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You logic appears tenuous and contrived, for what purpose? Why go through such convoluted 'logical' steps simply to avoid using 'sporting weapon' as the title? SaltyBoatr

Well of COURSE it's contrived; you don't just start with some random axioms and wander about applying random rules and expect a useful theorum to result, you start with a set of appropriate axioms and a desired result and apply the rules needed to get there. Two valued logic cannot be tenuous--if the axioms and steps applied are all correct, then the result is correct; there is no "maybe" in classical logic, it's all true or false. Either my proof is correct, or it is not.

Let's try a different approach. We're currently discussing two article titles, "sporting weapon" and "hunting weapon". Let's approach this from the angle of notability--which of these phrases is the most notable? A Google search for "hunting weapon" yields 30,000 hits, and a search for "sporting weapon" yields 3,530 hits. This gives a result 88% in favor of "hunting weapon". I'm sure you'll immediately call this "original research", as you did before, and yes, it is, but it's not going to be cited in the article and therefore that is not relevant. For establishing notability of a proposed title, a Google search is an accepted test^[4]. Since both terms exist, they should both be in Wikipedia, but the most common term should be used for the article title, and the others should be redirects. scot 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that all hunting weapons are sporting weapons, but not vice versa. Then Sporting weapons would be the more versatile title. SaltyBoatr 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that the intent of the article is to cover hunting weapons, not sporting weapons. Sporting weapons would be a good article, but at this point I think it would be better to start a new article for sporting weapons, rather than moving this article to that title.--LWF 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose intent? See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. SaltyBoatr 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the article as it currently stands. scot 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article, being inanimate, cannot have intent. SaltyBoatr 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still view that 'Hunting weapon' is non-standard English. I accept that 'Sporting weapon' is standard English since about 1880. A change in the title could easily fix this problem. The best way to resolve disputes is to avoid them. Why avoid this easy solution? SaltyBoatr 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to demonstrate to your satisfaction that "hunting weapon" is standard English, short of it appearing in the OED? You cannot find a source that says "Hunting weapon is not standard English", or I would assume you would have used it. Likewise, I can't find a source that says "Hunting weapon is standard English". I can, however, find credible uses of the term from present to over a century ago.

From before, a credible media source:
- A BBC Science & Nature article on Neanderthals, using the term "hunting weapon"
From before, a credible government source:
- A New Zealand statue using the term "hunting weapon"
The seminal book of hunting archery:
- Saxton Pope, in his 1923 book Hunting with the Bow and Arrow, refers to "hunting bow" "hunting arrow", "hunting head", and how these are different from a "target bow", etc., and also uses "hunting weapon" as in But if you are to get the best results for the hunting field, I believe it should approximate in weight the hunting weapon.^[5]
Two other works, not hunting related:
- Maspero, Gaston Camille Charles, 1846-1916 History Of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 1 (of 12) a fighting or hunting weapon; published by Oxford University^[6]
- Macé, Jean, 1815-1894 The History of a Mouthful of Bread And its effect on the organization of men and animals, translated into English in 1864, the chameleon...his tongue serves him for a hunting weapon, ^[7]

The way I see it, all that is required to disprove the assertion that "hunting weapon" is not standard English is to show credible use of the term, and I think I've managed to provide that, from current usage to usage well over a century ago, and including an Oxford University publication. I don't know what else I can do to prove that to you, short of getting "hunting weapon" used in the OED 3rd Ed. As for "sporting weapon", what sort of activity uses something as a weapon, and is considered a sport, but is not considered hunting? Trapping might qualify for "weapon", but not "sporting", likewise marksmanship qualifies for "sporting" but not "weapon". While it is possible, for example, to use the same firearm for both hunting and target shooting, the intended use will, if nothing else, influence factors like ammunition selection (expanding vs. full metal jacket, bullet weight, velocity) and setup (maximum point blank range zero vs. fixed range zero, use of a sling, magazine capacity). scot 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marksmanship is I think a better term for that, since it eliminates the connotations of the word "weapon". An airsoft gun, for example, can be used for target shooting (and the only thing you can use for IPSC in Japan and the UK) and they are certainly not weapons. Currently Marksmanship redirects to the article Shooting, which is in need of work. One definition of "marksman" reads "a person who is skilled in shooting at a mark" dating back to the 1640s, and I think that definition would cover all sorts of target sports, from archery to hatchet throwing to all firearms shooting sports. It misses out on distance sports, such as javelin, discus and hammer throw, but those are already covered under Athletics (track and field). I think working over the shooting page and making it into a decent page on general marksmanship would cover everything else. scot 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my question, Why avoid the easy solution? SaltyBoatr 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason you avoid the even easier solution to keep it titled "hunting weapon"--because I believe it is not the best solution. scot 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your reason is not my reason. Again, the easiest way to resolve a dispute is to avoid a dispute. I offered a simple compromise. You reject it, saying 'I believe it is not the best', but you give no reason. Please, let us find a compromise. SaltyBoatr 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b OED, 2nd Edition, 1989, retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com
^ [1]
^ http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/regs/huntregs2.htm
^ See here starting about 13:00
^ Hunting with the Bow and Arrow Gutenberg e-text
^ History Of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 1 (of 12) Gutenberg e-text
^ The History of a Mouthful of Bread And its effect on the organization of men and animals Gutenberg e-text

While wandering through on unrelated business...

...I stopped to view the carnage. After soaking it all up, my mind distilled it down to this:

Who gives a damn about the OED (any edition)? Several sources were given showing the term in common use. The OED doesn't appear contradict it. Just doesn't confirm it. Soooo... in this case, toss it out.
"An article, being inanimate, cannot have intent." -SaltyBoatr What? I rolled my eyes at that one. Come on! You knew what he meant. Knock it off.

I don't think you guys realize how silly the whole thing sounds from the outside. Splitting hairs, then splitting them again. And then... splitting them... again! Pfff. I fully expected someone to soon say "That depend on what the word 'the' means."

Hey, I'm obviously not inside the mind of this discussion. But for my part, as an outside observer just contributing to a concensus, Hunting weapon is a fine title. Better than Hunting implement. Better than Sporting weapon. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Arthurrh 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon?

Is it really an appropriate term for an object used for hunting. A weapon is an object used for harming human beings right, not for hunting game, anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfishsoldier (talk • contribs) 04:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an appropriate term for an object used for hunting. It is also the standard terminology used in hunting regulations worldwide. Yaf (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hunting weapon. 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).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hunting weapon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311060652/http://www.sungazette.com:80/articles.asp?articleID=2016 to http://www.sungazette.com/articles.asp?articleID=2016

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).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hunting weapon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929073011/https://www.georgiawildlife.com/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=279&txtPage=2 to https://www.georgiawildlife.com/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=279&txtPage=2

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).

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) 23:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] See dictionary; "Large 20th-century dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Webster's Third are descriptive, and attempt to describe the actual use of words."

[2] ttp://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198610229&view=ask

[ED2online-3] OED, 2nd Edition, 1989, retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com

[4] [1]

[5] ttp://www.wildlifedepartment.com/regs/huntregs2.htm

[6] See here starting about 13:00

[7] Hunting with the Bow and Arrow Gutenberg e-text

[8] History Of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 1 (of 12) Gutenberg e-text

[9] The History of a Mouthful of Bread And its effect on the organization of men and animals Gutenberg e-text

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]