Talk:Safari Club International

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sportsman Against Hunger

I'm not opposed to the recent edits to the SAH section. However the reference sourced is pretty biased. There are other more reputable sources to this story that are not part of an agenda. Such as [1] [2] [3]. Is it possible to re-edit the section to reflect a more NPOV source and also put the 'Current Event' Banner over this section as the issue is still in flux? Zonedar (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got those references, please swap out what's there. I agree the ref that I posted wasn't wonderful, but it did seem to have a lot of information. Feel free to re-edit. I hadn't seen that info before, so I didn't check for other sources, but thought it should be included. ThanksBob98133 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this section to add a recent CDC study regarding lead levels in game consumed by ND residents. I also deleted the section about the University of Iowa study as it seemed trumped (for lack of a better vocabulary) by the CDC study. I wanted to prevent a sense of back-and-forth in this section.Zonedar (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue Sources

The recent edits and reverts got me to thinking about the line in the Revenue Sources section about the numbers of guns SCI members own. It doesn't seem to belong in this section and I question the source. It's a pretty benign fact, but I'd like to see a reference from an more objective source than HSUS. So I'm going to remove it. Zonedar (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That info seemed a bit odd. I don't see how it's relevant without some basis for comparison and certainly a good reference.Bob98133 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCIF

SCI and SCIF are separate organizations and I don't think they should be treated as if they were. This page was exclusively about SCI and someone seems to have gone in and inserted segments on SCIF. Perhaps that should be made a separate section or separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhouseman (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has commented on this in 5 months, so I have begun to revert SCIF material from this article. These are two separate legal entitites and it doesn't make sense to have them on the same page. For example McDonalds and Ronald McDonald House have separate pages and barely mention each other although that company and charity have a similar relationship as SCI and SCIF. I will be removing the Humanitarian section and anything other than the mention under conservation projects. The info about SCIF should be on a separate page. It's fine to say that SCI created SCIF or supports it, but whatever SCIF does is legally separate from whatever SCI does.Bob98133 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look father down the talk page. It was discussed there. SCIF shares the same directors and officers as SCI. SCIF is a sub organization to SCI and created solely for tax purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonedar (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing the same directors and officers does not make two separate legal entities the same. It just means that there happen to be two entities with the same directors and boards. I just read the SCIF Bylaws - the only mention of SCI is that the officers are the same and that SCI groups can raise money for SCIF. While it's true that SCI maintains control over SCIF by having the same directors and board, SCIF was set up for tax purposes, and is NOT a part of SCI. It should have its own article, a brief mention in this article, or get dumped altogether. As I asked before, why isn't the Ronald McDonald Foundation as prominent in the McDonald's article, even though it bears a similar relationship to McD's as SCIF does to SCI? SCI should not be taking credit for accomplishments of SCIF - if they wanted to do that they should have bypassed the tax-deductible status and just donated directly to charities or causes.Bob98133 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reply answer is that if Mcdonalds went away, Ronald McDonald Foundation would likely continue to function. It is truly independent. I doubt one could state the same for SCIF if SCI disappeared. SCIF is subordinate to SCI, even if they are separate 'legal entities'. This is clearly evident in the way SCIF's board is set up. A quick look at RMHC's 2006 annual report shows that only 10 out of 30 of the officers and trustees are associated with McD or it's franchises. That being said, as there are only two opinions being expressed here, I'd like to hear others comment on this. Zonedar (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated links

I took the liberty of removing a couple of links that, IMHO, were simply put in as a POV. The article already contains a critisism section as well as POV in the ESA section, for example. Not meaning to get into an edit war, but I'd sure like to the thoughts supporting putting these links into the article. Zonedar 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. When I have time, I'll take the information from the links you removed and put it into the criticism section, with necessary references to these sources.Ollyn 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many members

Key detail missing. How many members in organization? --MarsRover 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Took a bit of reading to find it. --Zonedar 04:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda?

I made a few changes to the "Questionable Tax Deductions" section. The entire second paragraph was quoted from an op/ed piece written by the Executive Vice President of the HSUS, and therefore not neutral. I also included more information about the tax break than was originally included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vayne1 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included "supporters of wildlife conservation" because of the mission statement which reads, "Safari Club International is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide." and because of the roughly $3 million of conservation spending of just under $11 million total expenditures. Therefore, I do not believe that including "supporters of wildlife conservation" violates NPOV. Obviously SCI and HSUS(I think that's a relevant example, given the postings) have differing views on what constitutes wildlife conservation, which would be a good addition to the criticism page. Please let me know if there's something that more experienced editors might see here that I don't. Thanks!Apc1220 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "supporters of wildlife conservation" is certainly POV language. First, whether what SCI does can be considered conservation is hotly debated. Second, I'm sure SCI is composed of supporters of a LOT of things. What is not debated is that it is composed of hunters. SCI's motto is "first for hunters" and the subtitle of its magazine is "the journal of big game hunting." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhouseman (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if the latest addition of an external link to HSUS by 70.57.147.253 is due to an agenda. Thought about removing it, but then decided to ask the question here. At the very least the title of the link should be changed. --Zonedar 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is so little too this article I would not start deleting stuff. I changed the POV name of the link to the actual article name --MarsRover 02:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks!--Zonedar 03:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly like to see information added on the things that SCI has done/what they support. Just having information on the fact that they have a magazine and how many members they have is insufficient.

Endangered Species Avaliable in Wild/Canned?

Is Rhino Black/White Tiger Leopard Polar bears All Nth American Bears Still avaliable to hunt? I assume cheetah is.--Polygamyx4 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all of the above, with the exception of Tiger, have been approved by CITES for sport hunting. White Rhino, Leopard, and Polar Bear are importable into the U.S. with standard permits from the USFW. Cheetah is importable into most other European Countries with CITES permits. I think that Black Rhino (only RSA, I believe) is handled on a case-by-case basis in each country. Zonedar 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section as it was POV. Citing HSUS press releases is clearly biased. Unless the Author can cites independent sources and provide objective counter arguments, then the section should be removed.Zonedar (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left you private talk - I agree. Two opposing POV arguments with bad references don't make sense. Maybe some real references exist for both sides of this.Bob98133 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and reinstated. If a mainstream organisation like HSUS criticises SCI, then that criticism is notable. So. of course, is any reply from SCI to that criticism. Only if the criticism is demonstrably false, does it become POV. MikeHobday (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have no issues with listing criticism (although I'd disagree with HSUS being 'mainstream'). But it is worth noting, as they are one of SCI's critics. I guess my main issue was the fact that they were one liner attacks. I have no problem with your changes.Zonedar (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with you that the original wording was stark and unencyclopaedic. If the SCI has responded, or if there is good reason to know that it thinks the criticism in any way unfair or misleading, I'd support that view being entered too. MikeHobday (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit. Not perfect but it's all I had time for. In reality the whole article needs to be gone over. Lot's of unreferenced citations (and, IMHO, POV).Zonedar (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Society of the United States?

Is it really appropriate and in keeping with the NPOV to cite the Humane Society of the United States as an authority on whether or not SCI allows animals from canned hunts in their record books? Apparently, "Safari Club does allow persons to seek recognition [for animals from "canned hunts"], but only under limitations that most preserves can’t meet" (from counterbias.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.40.69 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it inappropriate to cite a source when the information is accurate? SCI allows animals from canned hunts to be included in its record books. Look at the record books. That is what "estate" always means when listed by hundreds of animals in the book.

Exactly what "limitations" are these? There is no space requirement. There is no requirement that the animal not have been obtained from a zoo or roadside circus. There is no requirement that the animal not be shot in a guaranteed kill hunt. There is not requirement that the animal even have been killed legally. There are dozens, if not hundreds of canned hunting ranches listed in SCI's record books. I wouldn't say that most don't meet SCI's qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhouseman (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annual hunters convention section

Is this section necessary? It is already mentioned in Leadership section. Every large organization has an annual convention with the same sort of activities. I don't see that listing items sold at auction at the convention or the financial proceeds of the convention add much to this article. I'll remove this section unless there are compelling reasons to keep it. Bob98133 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Just added for completeness.Apc1220 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCI & IRS

The last two revisions both contain good info that is referenced. From what I can see, SCI used to encourage tax breaks for hunting but the IRS changed the rules. Maybe the two editors who are reverting each other can combine the info into one concise, well-referenced paragraph which would make the article stronger and less POV? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards?

Is there some reason that every award that this group issues should be listed in this article? It makes the article unreadable. Maybe there should be a separate article of SCI Awards? If you look at Boy Scouts of America, that article doesn't list every merit badge awarded and what youhave to do to get it. I say that this entire section should be reduced to one short paragraph that SCI awards members who meet certain goals, otherwise it's just a grocery list of internal criteria for awards.Bob98133 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Needed, Awards Removed

Per talk entry 1/14/08, I have removed the grocery list of awards.
link to record book didn’t go there, needs – fact tag inserted
link to Mission Statement didn’t go there – inserted fact tag
deleted section on INternatinal Wildlife Museum – this is a municipal museum, no relation to SCI indicated
Charity Navigator link did not support amount of money used for conservation – “program expenses” do not equal conservation. Fact tag added
Sportsman Against Hunger reference no longer available online – added fact tag
SafariCare link fails to load, added fact tag.
Safari Wish Program – removed reference to self-published article (blog), added fact tag
removed ‘“claimed to be the “industry’s largest convention”’ – Wiki not the place for unsubstantiated claims. What industry?
deleted grocery list of items auctioned at convention and gross dollar income – all orgs have conventions, auctions, etc. not Wiki worthy stuff – already discussed on talk
deleted list of advertisers from magazine section
added fact tag to more lobbying successes
Criticism/Canned Hunts, removed unsupported references to other orgs since article is not about them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob98133 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you got your information that the International Wildlife Museum is a municipal museum, but it is not. The Wildlife Museum is actually also the SCI World Headquarters. Also, see the International Wildlife Museum "About" page. [4]. All in all, I think the list of recent changes have helped improve the quality of this article, but maybe the Museum refrence should be re-added? --Vayne1 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page you referenced, the museum is a part of SCIF (foundation) not SCI. For tax reasons, or whatever other reason, SCI decided that the museum should be a separate legal entity, so it really doesn't belong on the SCI page. If there were a page for SCIF, it would belong there. I guess it would be OK to say that SCI set up this non-profit and maybe they do something else, but legally they are a separate subject. Anyhow, that's my take on it.Bob98133 (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCIF is simply the 501(c)(3) charitable arm of SCI. SCIF's directors and officers are the same and SCIs. Their terms " commence, coincide and terminate" together. [5] In the preamble to the article SCIF is mentioned as part of SCI. Perhaps there needs to be a disambiguation page for SCIF that links to the SCI page, but a new separate article certainly is not necessary. If that's the case them the museum should certainly be mentioned on the SCI page. Zonedar (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recent endangered species sources

The sources cited in the new addition to the ednagered species section are not neutral. Source 26 is a hunting organization and source 28 is SCI commenting about CITES. I didn't revert this edit, since the information might be correct, but if the FWS or CITES is being referenced, they should be referenced directly, not from a biased web site. Bob98133 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your issues. But the criticisms referenced also came from a non-neutral source. I was simply trying to add SCI's responses. As was previously mentioned by MikeHobday, this is a criticism section. The criticisms are notable on their face, as are the responses. However, please feel free to find independent references.Zonedar (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Germany, so please don't look on my spelling faults. Seems you have the same problems as we have in Germany with references pro-gun or pro-hunting. Evidently the main newspapers never publish positive arguments and the special magazines are not neutral enough for WP. Maybe this sources of a big international association pro hunting which is a speaking NGO at UN Small Arms Biennale will be accepted as proof. SCI is one of their members: visit their world symposium on www.wfsa.net/environment.html Triebel (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting questionable tax deductions

I don't see how the "promoting questionable tax deductions section" is at all directly related to SCI. Maybe its due for some rewording or just deletion? I dunno, I'm new here. Just my thoughts. BMello324 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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} 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]