| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western Australian shark cull article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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]
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]
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]
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....
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]
"It could be said the article is about politics, and public protests, ..."
"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
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]
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 re-ordered the text in this edit, so that:
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:
But they are problems for another day, and/or other editors. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 section says (I've added bold here for emphasis)
InOctober 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]
- ^ "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]
Could someone else give an opinion on these recent edits by 1.122.217.205.
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]
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]
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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 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]
