Talk:Western Australian shark cull

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

Neutrality dispute and terminology[edit]

I see a neutrality dispute is open on this topic, but I don't see any discussion of areas of concern here? Care to discuss, anyone? Danimations (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to read through the article yet, but I am concerned that the title itself - specifically the word cull - is potentially emotive. So far as I know the government does not use the cull itself in describing its policy - at least not in the media release announcing the new measures. Do we have a link to the actual "policy"? However, most media reports use cull, and the "catch and kill" policy could reasonably be said to be culling by any dictionary definition of the word. (I checked Wiktionary and SOED.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the creation of this article as well, I held off tagging it but I do have concerns as well with the neutrality. I don't think it's out of hand, and there may not be a better side to represent but I also agree cull may have a negative connotation however if we can find good sources for it we can easily keep it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Troy Buswell says that the policy "does not represent what you would call a culling", but the ABC's FactCheck says it "can accurately be described as a cull". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article to note explicitly that "The government did not use the term cull in its initial statement, and has denied that it is a cull." Mitch Ames (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of history prior to current events[edit]

inadequate wikification, or links, or historical knowledge of western australian of shark issues (ie WP:RECENTISM - the usage of various shark prevention measures happens to go back a long way in western australia and no one seems the slightest bit interested - which gives the flavour of a politicised article. The WA government themslelves do themselves no favours by no showing any public knowledge of shark issues prior to this current series of events. satusuro 08:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks satusuro, I have an interest in expanding the historical component of this article, but don't yet have the information at my fingertips or the time at my disposal. I agree, it's wanting for more regional and national context. Thanks for your input- this is a hot topic in Australia at the moment, and I'd like to see it well represented here. Danimations (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{recentism}} tag as this article is only covering very recent events. Here are some sources that may help expand the article:
  • http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2013/04/fatal-shore-why-so-many-shark-attacks-/
  • http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Species/sharks/Pages/Fishery-management.aspx
  • and in 1927, hundreds of sharks were killed at Carnarvon – "news in Little". Western Mail (Perth, WA : 1885 - 1954). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 29 September 1927. p. 25. Retrieved 4 February 2014.
There's probably a lot more out there, but that's a start - Evad37 [talk] 14:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a relevant piece from 1955, which specifically describes drum lines. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/59700103 Thanks for your input Evad37, I'm preparing a new section presently in my sandbox, building upon your contributions. Danimations (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

categories and projects[edit]

the articles is about sharks, but not about shark attacks or conservation

It could be said the article is about politics, and public protests, however....

  1. The cause of the issue is death of 7 people from shark attacks, and they are noted in the article.
  2. Many of the people protesting are concerned that an endanger species of shark is being caught, hence shark conservation (check on google - shark catching on the planet is close to the death rate in syria)

The initial project group was shark/ocean/australia - I have removed ocean as scope is too far out of range.

To claim that this article is not about shark attacks (read the article) or conservation... is missing the point. satusuro 09:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above was moved by satusuro, at my request, from my talk page. From the original, it more obvious that the first/italicised line is from this/my edit summary where I changed the categories. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Categories#Articles, categorization is by the defining characteristics of the subject of the article (in this case, the "cull"), not the cause of the [subject of] the article (shark attacks), or protests arising from it.
"It could be said the article is about politics, and public protests, ..."
In which case I would suggest that the article be renamed to "the politics of shark culls" or "shark cull protests" or similar. But I don't believe that is the case.
"The initial project group was shark/ocean/australia - I have removed ocean as scope is too far out of range."
I don't disagree with which WikiProjects include this article, so I presume we can limit this discussion to the categories.
"To claim that this article is not about shark attacks (read the article) or conservation... is missing the point
As I mentioned in edit summary it may be more appropriate to use the See also section to link to shark attack or conservation articles. I believe categorisation is much more specific in purpose. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Baston[edit]

The inclusion of Ken Baston in the sentence:

The state government, led by Premier Colin Barnett, Fisheries Minister Ken Baston and former Fisheries Minister Troy Buswell, developed the policy ...

does not appear to be consistent with other sources that I checked, which have Buswell as Fisheries Minister. Does someone have a specific reference that includes Baston? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this, Mitch. Baston is the current Fisheries minister, so was involved in its implementation, Buswell was previously, hence was more involved with its design and preparation. This could use clarification. The media doesn't appear to have chased Baston for comment, so the succession from Buswell to Baston is not widely publicised. I'm not sure when this occurred. Here's the link for Baston's current position, showing his role as Fisheries Minister. http://www.premier.wa.gov.au/Ministers/Ken-Baston/Pages/Default.aspx Danimations (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. The article probably needs to state explicitly when Baston took over the portfolio, so that some of the other bits make sense. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, I've found the succession via cabinet reshuffle here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20190215/barnett-reshuffles-wa-cabinet/ . I can't implement the change this minute, but will get onto it asap, unless someone else would care to rewrite and clarify? Danimations (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Troy Buswell and Ken Baston (but not Western Australian shark cull) accordingly. Changeover date of 11 December 2013 for Fisheries is in [1] and [2]. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-ordering of text, 2014-02-04[edit]

I've re-ordered the text in this edit, so that:

  • Most of the opposition and criticism material (and Barnett's response) is under an Opposition section.
  • 2014 - The cull begins - which I consider to be non-neutral - has been renamed to 2014, changed to a sub-heading under Recent history, and some of its previous contents moved to Opposition and Cost.

I've also removed the picture of Greg Norman, as it messed up the layout even more that it currently is, and doesn't add value to the article.

The end result is still not ideal; in particular:

  • The layout with the pictures under Opposition is not so good (text is my forte, not graphic design).
  • 2014 includes some significant "opposition" material, but it's not clear to me how or if they should be moved to Opposition.

But they are problems for another day, and/or other editors. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which came first - Dunsborough or Coogee[edit]

The 2013 section says (I've added bold here for emphasis)

In October 2013, the government commenced a trial of a shark-proof enclosure at Old Dunsborough Beach near Busselton. A similar barrier was installed at Coogee Beach, south of Fremantle in December 2013.[1]

  1. ^ "WA's first shark barrier to be installed off Coogee Beach today". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 2013-12-12. Retrieved 2014-03-09.

The ref for Coogee says that Coogee was (in December) the first barrier in WA, but our article says (with no ref) that Dunsborough was installed in October. Does someone have a ref for Dunsborough? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, Mitch- I've found citations for these installations and have clarified accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. Old Dunsborough was announced first (in October) but wasn't installed until January 2014. Coogee's enclosure was installed in December. Danimations (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 1.122.217.205[edit]

Could someone else give an opinion on these recent edits by 1.122.217.205.

  • "marine conservationists" has been changed to "marine scientists" - plausible, but I'd like to see a reference.
  • The Leader of the Opposition's plan for the policy has apparently been reversed, but the same reference is used. I can't check the reference because it says "This video is not available in this geography at this time."
  • A sentence about a contractor mis-identifying a shark has been added, but the ref does not support it.
  • A sentence about " Critics of Stehr's stance" has been added that is not supported by the reference. (Possibly it's in the comments on that ref page, but they would not count as a reliable source.)

I'm inclined to revert the edits, but I'd like someone else's opinion first. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related list article[edit]

I've just uploaded List of fatal shark attacks in Australia which may be of interest. Moondyne (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Western Australian shark cull. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "Shark threat management in other jurisdictions" belongs[edit]

Perhaps "Shark threat management in other jurisdictions" should go into another article. It has lots of good content but I think it is not appropriate in an article called 'WA Government shark cull'. What do others think? Clare. (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Possibly at least some of Western Australian shark cull § Alternative strategies should also be moved or copied into that new article. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well. Perhaps a new article Called "Shark risk management" or something similar? There seems to be a lot of contraversy over the best way to manage the risk, with a lot of miss-information out there. I'm happy to help out, however I'm new to editing wikipedia / do not have much experience (Ilenart626 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note that I have drafted and submitted for review a new article call "Shark attack prevention" which incorporates the "Shark threat management in other jurisdictions". Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shark_attack_prevention. Ilenart626 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done article approved and "Shark threat management in other jurisdictions" section modified and referenced. See Shark attack prevention Ilenart626 (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5th paragraph under opposition, 1st sentence. Replaced "deterring" with "reducing the incidence of" We can "deter" higher level animals such as rats and wolves from being in a place (or attacking people) by killing their fellow animals: they observe the death, and become skittish. i.e. deterred. No basis to believe that sharks have this high level thinking.MarkDougherty (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New section, Justification and Policy[edit]

I have just added a new section "Justification and Policy". Please review and add / amend. Most of the justification details I copied accross from the Shark attack page. The "Policy" details were already in the "Implementation" section, which I updated for the current policy of the new WA state government.

The is also lots of usefull information in the https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/publications/documents/review%20-%20western%20australia%20shark%20hazard%20mitigation%20drum%20line%20program%202013-14.pdf if anyone is interested in adding further details Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that document to "External links". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename article and transfer sections to a new article[edit]

I propose that this article be renamed "Shark attacks in Western Australia" plus some of the content be moved to a new article called "Shark control controversy"

Main reason is the new West Australian government has announced an end to killing sharks, therefore the main issue behind this page is now gone. However the issue of why so many shark attacks in West Australia are occurring still remain, which I believe would be a worthwhile article. The article could then focus on issues such as what the new WA state government are now proposing (ie shark shield subsidy, etc). Plus it could include information on why the number of WA shark attacks are one of the highest in the world, which has few details in the current page.

However the page contains useful information on the controversy surrounding shark control / culling, which I believe could be the basis of a new article. This issue is also mentioned in various other articles ie Shark nets, Drum line (shark control), Shark attack prevention, etc. The new article could then become the focal point for this issue, expanded to cover all locations (ie NSW, Reunion Island, etc) not just West Australia.

I'm happy to prepare drafts of the new pages if their is support (or no strong opposition). Anyone have any comments?

Also any comments on the proposed names of "Shark attacks in West Australia" and "Shark control controversy"?Ilenart626 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk page above, very carefully -

there are serious ramifications from the history of the subject as such, and the tendency (in the past, of the Australian editing community) to be exceptionally wary of animal attacks sets of articles - regardless of the species of animal or the interactions with humans.

If you read the talk page - and any of the animal attacks articles and histories - you will realise that we dont appreciate falling into recentism traps - or applying 'universal' sense of things, that is not already set in articles for other states.

I am of no help in relation to 'control' or no control, I leave it to other editors to respond to this issue. Take care JarrahTree 10:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Australian_shark_cull&oldid=1206019337"