Talk:Ducks Unlimited

Advert Tag
Based on some of the light controversy this organization gets from its hunting stance, I am surprised none of the hunting aspect is mentioned in the article. Based on the POV conversation below, it looks as if it had been at some point and then edited down, then taken out completely. At the very least, in its present form the article needs cleaning up and more citations. Since it seems POV is arguable or up in the air for this article, I'm adding the Advert tag instead - the article currently reads more like a press release for DU instead of an objective article. -Thehedgehog 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag
I removed the POV tag as it seems pretty non-biased and factual to me. There were also no reasons given as to why it neutrality of the article was suspect. Movementarian 08:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I put the POV tag up because while, on the one hand, Ducks Unlimited does preserve wetlands, they've also faced criticism for being a pro-hunting group; this isn't reflected in the article as it ought to be. Furthermore, "DUC Facts" seem to be a straight copy-and-paste from somewhere (I'm still looking for where), and it reads very pro-DU-biased to me. It's not as bad a POV case as, say, Fascism (United States), but it needs work. - Stlemur 17:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that, I will replace your POV tag. Movementarian 19:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont understand how one edits these tags but I was interested in DU as I wanted to know if anyone had described the definition of wildfowling, the harvesting of a sustainable surplus of "wild" ducks and geese (waterfowling in US). As no-one had put up such a definition I had a look at the DU page as it came up as a relevent hit. Allthough DU is based in the US and Canada, it is know internationally as primarily a shooting and conservation organisation, which has been the most sucessful wildfowl and wetland conservation group ever, primarily because of vested interests of their members for hunting. I believe that the article states that the DU was started to conserve, protect and promote habitats for wildfowl by "concerned businessmen" for the good of HUNTING. Therefore the article does not hide the true objectives of its mebership and should not be criticised as such. Best wishes Tom Cameron, Leeds, UK
 * Although you are right to point out that the article mentions 'hunting,' the inclusion of such seems akin to a 'fine print.' It should have more prominent position and weight within the article to present the organization in a balanced 'neutral' light.  Just because something is 'mentioned' does not necessarily mean the article is balanced; as you put it, the 'true objectives of its membership' should be spelled out as such.  A concerned passer-by. 7 March 2006
 * I wholly agree, this article is definitely not written in a neutral fashion. Ducks Unlimited is an organization that sees wetlands as a place to hunt, and conserves them so they can hunt there. They are not a pro-wildlife organization, they are a pragmatic hunting organization. The fact that 95% of the article says nothing about hunting is not an even handed or honest assessment of DU. --hack 00:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the POV tag after adding a few sentences on the controversy surrounding DU and the influence hunting has on the organisation. I believe that hunting is now mentioned sufficiently enough to warrent removal of the POV tag.  I also removed or reworded some of the DUC facts which seemed to contain non-neutral wording and am trying to find the proper citations for the DUC facts. Pat 19 July 2006


 * I disagree. I think purpose and scope are more or less irrelevant, and that Ducks Unlimited is a conservationist organization in every sense of the term. Being ‘pro-hunting’ does not make them ‘anti-wildlife’. It doesn’t need to be overstated, and casting it in a negative light would be inserting POV. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored POV tag
If this is not POV, then I am not sure what is. At the very least, this article REQUIRES sources, since it is clearly a somewhat controversial organization. As it is, it reads like a company press-release. Williamroy3 15:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But.. how many company press releases have you seen that contain a "Criticism" section? The fact that DU is and always has been a pro-hunting organisation is clearly stated in the "Criticism" section, and the objections that DU's critics have leveled are also mentioned. I see no need for a POV tag when both POV's are covered. I suggest the POV tag be replaced with "requires sources" tag... and will do so in the next few days unless someone comes up with a valid reason not to.Grant Gussie 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this guy. DU is pro-hunting, pro-conserving land.  I think both of these are state well and anyone that reads the article will not say "Oh, I like this organization.  They promote conserving land" and then go attempt to join only to find they also promote hunting.  I do agree more sources are needed for the time being, however on both the main facts and the Criticism area.--WhereAmI 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK... just to be sure I have expanded the paragraph on DUs pro-hunting stance in the introduction section, to the point where the fact that their magazine is a hunting magazine as well as a conservation magazine is also mentioned. I also don't think anyone could mistakingly join DU only to be shocked by the fact that they promote the shooting of ducks. So now the lack of referenced sources remains, in my opinion, the only remaining problem. I will go ahead with replacing the POV tag with a "sources required" tag unless anyone else objects.Grant Gussie 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

weasel words
The "Controversies" section contains a phrase that needs to be rewritten due to weasel words and handwaving: "DU also continues to complete many more successful conservation projects than do many of its detractors." Anyone want to give this a shot? Bricology (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * After 2 years I guess not.172.56.2.230 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section
There was nothing in the references that supported the claims made. It is someone's personal feelings about DU and is unsupported. Criticism is fine but it must be supported so it is not just someone personal feelings which is what wikipedia is not 172.56.2.230 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)