Jump to content

Talk:Pedals (bear)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sports deaths in New Jersey

[edit]

Category:Sports deaths in New Jersey. Bear-hunting is a sport. Article extensively discuses death related to the sport.Djflem (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many who would disagree that bear-hunting is a "sport". Our own article Bear hunting mentions the word only once and this is not in the lead. DrChrissy (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Bear hunting's status as a sport is controversial. Category:Sports deaths in New Jersey states that it is for "People who have died as a result of injuries sustained while participating in, training for, or spectating sporting events in New Jersey", and is a subcategory of Category:Accidental deaths in New Jersey. Pedals is the only non-human listed; while some might argue for animal personhood, that's even more controversial than whether bear hunting is a sport. And Pedals death was certainly not accidental. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The people part is an arbitrary header and can/should be removed as cats are self-explanatory and should be not qualified. Inclusion of cat in parent cat does necessarily mean exclusion of items in child cat. Hunting (including of bears) is considered a sport, whether it's controversial or not is not a criteria nor is animal personhood. (both are not relevant). The animal was killed as a result of a sanctioned sports activity. As is policy, changes should not be made until the matter is settled.Djflem (talk)
I disagree. Hunting is most certainly not universally considered to be a sport. It seems to me absurd to place this article in a category which is clearly intended to mean humans. DrChrissy (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:Categorization Sometimes, a common-sense guess based on the title of the category isn't enough to figure out whether a page should be listed in the category. So, rather than leave the text of a category page empty (containing only parent category declarations), it is helpful – to both readers and editors – to include a description of the category, indicating what pages it should contain, how they should be subcategorized, and so on. DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created in August 2008 with an arbitrary header added one editor. As seen [1] a parent category Category:Accidental human deaths in New Jersey was changed to Category:Accidental deaths in New Jersey, which eliminated the use of the word "human". Perhaps eight years ago the original author felt a need to include the header, but that has evolved considering the circumstances. Later, in 2010, that editor in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6#Accidental deaths goes on to mention that chimpanzees would eligible for the cat w/o the word human. Addtionally, universal acceptance as a criteria doesn't seems to be a valid argument.Djflem (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are much more important edits to be made rather than arguing about the inclusion of 1 category on a small article. However, if "conditions" had "evolved" regarding the heading, shouldn't you have discussed these at the talk page rather than unilaterally deleting the heading? DrChrissy (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Category talk:Sports deaths in New Jersey.Djflem (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-hunting bias

[edit]

This article has a clear and disturbing anti-hunting bias wherein the subject is referred to as being killed instead of being hunted or harvested and refers to the bear being "targeted for hunting," which was rewritten but then reverted as being "sanitization." The "Killing" section fails WP:NPOV and should be changed but as this section stands right now it is a POV mess that is trying to push an anti-hunting agenda. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pedals being individually targeted, it is a paraphrase of this "We wanted Pedals to go to a sanctuary to live the rest of his life without the threat of a hunt looming over him because someone wanted to pop him off because he was an internet sensation,” which is reliably sourced in the article.
I fail to see how the "Killing" section fails NPOV or is anti-hunting. "Killing" is a neutral word. It does not say "cruelly killed" or "slowly killed". "Harvesting" means to gather for food (was Pedals eaten) and in this case is a euphemism which IMHO has pro-hunting connotations. DrChrissy (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's well-known that someone (or multiple someones) had it out for this bear in particular. It's not anti-hunting to point that out. Nor is it anti-hunting to use the word "killing" which is an inherent part of the activity. I'm not really seeing the issue here. clpo13(talk) 18:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a good deal less well known than fear of it. Many of the sources that emphasize this , including the fist take of the article, are blatant propaganda. Anmccaff (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissy, the part that talks about the animal being specifically targeted is the director of the Bear Education and Resource Program which is an organization that talks about "fostering a peaceful coexistence between bears and humans" and whose website is named "Save NJ Bears." That is definitely a pro-animal rights/pro-environmentalist POV source. In this context "killing" is biased because the subject died during a hunt and a term like "hunted" is thus more neutral and factual. "Harvest" can be used in contexts that do not involve the gathering of food for consumption. I also fail to see how "harvesting" is a pro-hunting term; it is a neutral and impartial term while "killing" is clearly a pro-animal rights term. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to disassociate the term "killing" from a pastime that is based entirely on making things dead is absurd. "Harvesting" and "hunting" are no more neutral. I mean, we're not talking about using "murdered" like the first version of this article. (It's worth noting that the article on hunting uses the dreaded k-word in the very first sentence.) clpo13(talk) 19:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reread the article and each time the K-word is used, it is in close association with reference to hunting or hunter. There can be no doubt in a reader's mind that Pedals was killed in a hunt and not just killed. DrChrissy (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article on hunting is describing what it is so there it is acceptable to use "killed." On this article the more neutral "The bear was hunted" should be used instead of the less neutral "The bear was killed." "Hunted" neutrally describes what happened to the animal whereas "killed" adds its own value judgment. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article hardly "disassociates" the concepts; "harvest" is used once or twice, depending on version, and "kill" is used, avoidably, six or seven times, depending on version. (The references to the linked article' names on Harambe and Cecil are unavoidable, except by dropping the links, really.) The big bold words seen at a glance are "Pedals," Fame" and "Killing." That's hardly disassociating. Anmccaff (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring more to Millionsandbillions sentiment that "killing" is clearly a pro-animal rights term. clpo13(talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wikipedia does not use euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM). The bears, like deer, were killed in a hunt. Wheat is harvested, not wild game. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is better now that the heading has become "Death" instead of "Killing" but there are still areas for improvement. Thus, "reports of Pedals being killed by a hunter" should become -- "reports of Pedals being hunted" while "Pedals had been killed during the hunt" should be "Pedals had died during the hunt" and "In response to the killing" should become "In response to the hunt". All are more neutral than the previous and should avoid any problems with WP:EUPHEMISM. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"reports of Pedals being hunted" does not accurately reflect that he was killed. He might have been stalked but the hunter with the bow and arrow missed.
"Pedals had died during the hunt" could mean that pedals died of a heart attack whilst being chased.
"In response to the hunt" might inaccurately reflect the motivations for the legislation. This would need to be fact checked.
DrChrissy (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely. All of the wild bears of New Jersey were hunted, some with very different results. "Taken," "bagged," or "harvested" may or may not be appropriate, depending on context, but "'"INSERT NAME' died during the hunt" suggests a heart attack or an accidental shooting. Anmccaff (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the point I was making. The sentences were quotes of Millionsandbillions. They were not my suggestions. DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hoped that was very obvious from context. Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Alright, I understand (and agree with) your objections. I withdraw my suggestions. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Harvest" means to gather for food. We do not know whether Pedals was eaten, but we do know he was killed.

[edit]

Well, in the strictest sense, some would take it mean gathering and processing plant crops, but the wider use is quite common. We don't eat sunlight, at least not directly, but we have "energy harvesting." I don't see the usage here as wrong, or as ridiculously euphemistic - the article makes it clear that the process deaded him, as Bluebottle would have it. Anmccaff (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the wider use of the term harvesting; I have used it myself when writing articles about animals in agriculture. I also accept your use in "Energy harvesting", but that is still something we are gathering for our own use. I have not suggested it as "ridiculously euphemistic" - that was another editor's edit summary, however, I have stated it is euphemistic. DrChrissy (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedals_(bear)&oldid=1208889105"