Talk:Emperor of Exmoor

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

Jardine deletion[edit]

In re: this edit, it may have been hasty to delete that cited section. It's a commonly cited book, and the writing style is not relevant to the cited claim. If it sounded too POV in the article, then rewrite the claim or its attribution. Orcas and whales - are they "indegenous" land mammals to Great Britain? No, they're not, and there's no claim of greatness over them, so I'd like to know a bit more about your reaction to the claim and cite. Note that I didn't put it in, but I am an interested editor. Also, have Jardine's technical observations somehow been discredited, aside from his sometimes breathless prose and assertion of the majesty of the beast? If that one's totally unacceptable, there's this book from 1854 of admittedly scientific and popular observations, which also waxed poetic for a moment before getting down to tacks. I'm really on the side of sources, no matter their age - that's what we do: cite sources.--Lexein (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Orcas, whales and seals are not wild land animals in Britain, that's why I introduced the distinction: they are however part of British fauna, which made the previous claim ("Britain's largest known living wild animal") untenable. I'm afraid that I don't understand your phrase "there's no claim of greatness over them" at all.
The only claim lifted from Jardine was that the red deer "has been described as "the noblest of [our] indigenous species": so the writing style is entirely relevant (it is certainly not a technical observation), and I believe is adequately described as early Victorian hyperbole, and therefore not of encyclopaedic style. Kevin McE (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're not understanding each other very well. The insertion of "land" is obviously correct. Hyperbole or not, it's still an oft-quoted source, and not just by Wikipedia. Still curious: why not cite old sources as old sources, and old writers as old writers? We can certainly quote hyperbole, properly attributed. I'm pretty sure the intention was not to assert the hyperbole with scientific authority (just the species name) or to have Wikipedia's voice assert the animal's regalness, just that the red deer has a history of some prideful praise by English authors. --Lexein (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Gross error, especially when found in so-called serious newspapers (the source, I believe, of the "Britain's largest known living wild animal" claim), makes me feel "shouty". If you approve of the insertion of "land", and accept the reason for doing so, I don't understand that part of your initial post. Maybe I could have punctuated the edit note more clearly.
The quotation of "prideful praise" is to invite an emotional response to the article. That seems to me highly unencyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite usual for qualifying words to be assumed or dropped as time goes on and stories evolve. It's correct here, though it's not unreasonable for readers to see the words deer and wild animals and assume the set is land animals. It's not as bad as this, after all.
Well, we do include praise, in the form of quotes of reviewers' reviews of (say) movies, properly and insularly quoted: again, it's in the attribution, not the quote, that the problem lies. In my opinion. Encyclopedic does not demand passive voice, and neutral does not mean neutered. --Lexein (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

League against Cruel Sports land[edit]

Is this significant? The League own less than 1.2% of the park (if the animal were to wander randomly, there would be a 1 in 85 chance that it finds itself on their land), but any land where the landowner has not given permission is, legally, equally protected. LCS land is presumably a small proportion of this. The relevant issue is whether the landowner of the site where the animal was killed had given permission: is this known? Kevin McE (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Source for 1.2%? Just curious.) Haven't seen an official declaration yet, just observations from interested observers who variously claim "legal" or "probably legal", and no word from the landlord or hunter at this precise moment. Hopefully the BBC will interview someone official to put that matter to rest. --Lexein (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article on Exmoor gives area of park as 267 square miles: I did the sums from that.
If the shooting was legal (or even probably legal), then the shooting of this beast is not, of itself, notable. So as to the retention of the article, was the animal itself notable. The largest specimen, in a limited area, of a wild species is not automatically notable. What evidence is there of WP:GNG being met before the animal died. At present there is only one citation dated before it died, a low profile colour piece. Maybe it should be noted that the man indirectly quoted many times in the article through his comments to the BBC is the same who virtually signed the animal's death warrant with his "under no circumstances should anyone try to hunt or shoot [it]" comment published less than 10 days before it's deathStricken because I misread the date on the citation. Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see legality directly anulling notability. This isn't a one-off, or WP:MILL run-of-the-mill herd of deer getting shot. This particular deer's 2009 coverage and 2010 coverage (October 5-9), followed by the October 25(?) shooting, early in the rutting season, against best practice by some experts, and too early in the deer's (estimated) lifespan, accompanied by "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" internationally-covered surprise at the event do count. Notability is determined by the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), specifically, multiple independent reliable sources, with persistence. Note that I consider the prior coverage key here: without it notability would be poor. Also, I still want to see: official declaration of the shooting's legal status, whether the taking was done correctly (are the remains supposed to be abandoned, or hauled off for food?), some authoritative estimate of age, and the text of the 1991 and 1993 law. --Lexein (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Illegality could add to notability ("it was killed illegally" carries more weight than "it was hunted in accordance with the law"), but I agree with what I think you are saying, that if it was not notable alive it is not likely to be notable dead. The 2009 coverage you refer to, the only coverage cited in the article prior to its death, is marginal at best as to whether it reaches GNG: one minor article making unverifiable claim that it is the largest of its species in the country. I'm not sure what October 5-9 coverage you refer to. The age of the animal or how early in the season this occurred might be material for debating whether the legal restrictions are fit for purpose, but do not make this particular animal more notable. Unless there is proof that it was sought out particularly because of the previous coverage, it is the epitome of run-of-the-mill shooting of a legal game animal. The qualification of the much quoted Peter Donnelly as an exppert is unclear. Kevin McE (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death[edit]

This creature was discovered to have died on October 25th so can't possibly have died on October 26th! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.212.4 (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the articles is reported as having been written on 18 October, saying that the animal was killed "a few days" before that. Innaccurate claim of precise date removed. Kevin McE (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's now some doubt whether the animal was killed at all, it may just be a story to deflect attention. There may be WP:RS saying he was shot, but that doesn't mean it's true.... Le Deluge (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The chip shop worker, Mr Mojo Risin', Jesus, and now this! An animal that only a handful of people can confidently identify, that might be bigger than specimens elsewhere in the country, but no-one knows because accurate measurements have not been taken, who no-one has reliably identified dead, has been unreliably identified alive. Is there any such thing as a RS? Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing[edit]

Having the quote referring to stalking as "persecution", without a countering viewpoint, makes the article POV, IMHO. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm unhappy with the reliance of the article on the unsubstantiated "expertise" of this Peter Donnelly, who a year ago was reported as retired, and now is "an expert in deer management". The guy made his living from keeping stocks of the animal for hunting, so he is not a disinterested party. But the quote that Bushranger raises has now been edited, apparently in the interests of NPOV, to change it from being a conditional statement to an absolute; the article now is not only about one creature, but is presenting a one-sided viewpoint of current legislation. Kevin McE (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit better now. --Lexein (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The (reported) death of this animal was international news[edit]

News of this animal's (reported) death reached across the United States -- at the least. That would seem to make this animal "notable."

Naming it the "Emperor of Exmoor" would also make it "notable." Would anyone go to the trouble of naming an animal that was not deemed "notable" in some way?

Did previous news stories in the UK -- in 2009 or whenever -- identify this animal as the largest or best representitive of its species? That would seem to make it "notable" regardless of whether or not it was indeed the largest and or "best" representitive of its species (And however "best" would be defined).

If it had been identified in the press as the largest/best representitive of its species it would not only seem be "notable," but, human nature being what it so often is, such reports would also tend to increase the likelihood that someone would want to kill it for that very reason.

I vote for "notable" and leave it to the rest of you to debate the moral issues involved in killing him. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This is not an AfD discussion: that was raised, discussed, and dismissed weeks ago. Hundreds pf millions of people "go to the trouble" of naming non-notable animals: they are called pets. Kevin McE (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
are you saying my dog is not notable?? Beach drifter (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emperor of Exmoor. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emperor of Exmoor. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emperor_of_Exmoor&oldid=1205785305"