Talk:British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Notability question is silly
I think that the notability template should be removed. This is a major British organisation, perhaps somewhat equivalent to the US National Wildlife Federation in that both are pro-hunting conservation groups. Any English-speaking organisation with 130,000 members belongs in the English Wikipedia in my opinion. Certainly the article needs to be improved -- by qualifed editors -- but the idea that it should be merged or deleted is ridiculous! 69.96.255.199 (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's given evidence in select committees in Parliament. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6805 I shall remove the notice. 109.154.126.255 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've added some tags, would like some discussion before editing proper. The paragraph "Over the years BASC has demonstrated.." clearly reads like an endorsement of the BASC and possibly a bit of a passive aggressive dig at some other organisations. The "WAGBI nearly died due to the losses sustained" paragraph is also pretty partisan, especially in it's description of the Protection of Birds Bill (great pun by the way). I've tagged this two but I believe the rest of the article can be of similar tone sometimes, but a neutrality banner is not the sort of thing you just put on the top of a page unilaterally and might not even be a bit much. I'm sure these are good faith edits by people enthusiastic about this page, but it's just that on wikipedia there are an abundance of viewpoints and we need to be careful to be neutral. (Protectthehuman (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Also I think it means "demonise the proponents of shooting" not opponents, but I'm not "correcting" that obviously. (Protectthehuman (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

close paraphrasing
Sections of this article appear to have been copied from the association's website, this page in particular:. Any such text should be deleted and rewritten, preferably from 3rd-party sources. The website itself can be used as a source for routine facts, but the article should be based on independent, secondary sources. I'm too lazy right now to do all the work myself, and I'm too nice to just delete it outright. Rewriting from reliable sources would probably help address the neutrality issues raised in the previous thread. Rezin (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible helpful source
this might be a helpful source:

Martin, John - 'British Association for Shooting and Conservation' in: (with a link to another source (1970))

--Dick Bos (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)