Talk:Blood sport/Archive 1

Archive 1

Extrenal Links

I have removed the cock fighting video link on the page, I think it has no place on this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.141.196 (talk) 23:55, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Removed Hunting from list of blood sports. Hunting may or may not be a sport. Often it is still required for mere survival. Ths artical definately has some one sided opinions. I came here looking for Bloodsport the movie.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blood sport. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070520051759/http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk:80/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1255 to http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1255

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blood sport. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.henrysalt.co.uk/index_old.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413232737/http://www.wspa-international.org:80/ to http://www.wspa-international.org

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blood sport. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006071848/http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues2/2005/vol09n19/Cockfighting.html to http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues2/2005/vol09n19/Cockfighting.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blood sport. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006071848/http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues2/2005/vol09n19/Cockfighting.html to http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues2/2005/vol09n19/Cockfighting.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1255
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wspa-international.org/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

History this talk page

This talk page was redirected to Talk:Blood sport (hunting) for a brief time in December 2005 to January 2006. For talk during that time (and the rationale for moving the article back here from blood sport (hunting), please see that page. I have this day created blood sport (disambiguation) and bloodsport (disambiguation) pages and moved the content of blood sport (hunting) to this page. The general rationale for this "reambiguation" is that the activity involving animals is the first historical and dominant use of the term, and that blood sports for the most part do NOT involve hunting or fishing (or sport, for that matter). - Rorybowman 14:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hunting as a Blood Sport

Can someone clarify for me in what way hunting is a blood sport? I mean this in all seriousness. See, I can understand how trophy hunting or sport hunting or something like that might be considered a blood sport. But hunting is a more general term that also includes hunting for subsistence reasons. That doesn't even meet the definition of sport, so how can it be a blood sport? There are many parts of the world where hunting is still very much part of a subsistence lifestyle. I truly, honestly, fail to see how this can be called a blood sport.

Now, someone might want to say that that's not the kind of hunting that's refered to here. But, how is it excluded if it's not explicitly included? In my opinion, including hunting in here, without qualification, reveals a POV problem that may, in fact, be symptomatic of a larger, conceptual difficulty with the entry itself. At the very least, I propose deletion of the "hunting" entry. We might want to replace it by "trophy hunting" or "sport hunting" or, perhaps, both. Alternatively, most of the forms of hunting, such as fox hunting, hare coursing and pig sticking, are already listed so we may want to go with just that.

BTW, I've placed similar comments on the Template talk:Bloodsports page almost a week ago with no response. Comments? — Dave 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "blood sport" is almost entirely a rhetorical or political one, and in my experience almost no one who uses it has any interest in allowing for hunting of any sort. I find the rhetorical use of "blood sport" in regards to hunting almost identical to the use of "pro-life" as regards abortion. Don't waste your breath, as reason is not their point in using the term. - Rorybowman 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunting is not always a sport, true, but it is sometimes a sport, and where it is a sport the description "blood sport" seems straightforwardly accurate. As you observe above, the origins of the phrase are not polemical even if that is its modern use. I'm not sure it's that loaded a phrase anyway; you'll only have a negative reaction to it if you always react negatively to the shedding of animal blood, in which case you're not going to be more pro-hunt because a different phrase is used. What would be a more accurate and less loaded umbrella term - "animal death sports"? I write as one who thoroughly enjoys his "blood food" :-) — ciphergoth 10:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My comments were not, in any way, intended to imply disagreement with the term blood sport. I feel it's clear that sport hunting, trophy hunting, hare coursing, etc are, by definition, blood sports. You are correct that "where it [hunting] is a sport the description 'blood sport' seems straightforwardly accurate." What I'm concerned with are the cases where hunting is not a sport. I truly don't care whether or not this term or another one encourages people to be "more pro-hunt". I care about accuracy. It is simply incorrect to call hunting a blood sport and to qualify it no further which this article and the template do. It would be correct to call trophy hunting, sport hunting, etc a blood sport. Hunting is a technique, it is not, necessarily, a sport. It's a technique that can be used for sport or not. In what way do the current article and the template capture that subtlety? I suppose I could simply "be bold" and change the article to be clearer. I posted here and on the template talk page because I wanted to avoid a revert war. Notice that we took fishing out of here and the template and replaced it with sport fishing (a move, BTW, supported on the fishing and sport fishing talk pages). I'm simply extending the very same argument to hunting. I think the article, at the least, needs to be clear that hunting can be a blood sport but isn't necessarily so. The template is more problematic. There is currently no entry for sport hunting and, consequently, we could not make a change analogous to what was done for fishing. — Dave 16:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

While both sport and subsistence hunting are covered under one article, it's appropriate for the bloodsports template to link to that one article. If and when it's split into separate articles then the template can be changed to link to the right one. The article should clarify that not all hunting is sport hunting. Does that make sense? — ciphergoth 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between fishing and sport fishing exists because commercial fishing is a viable industry, at least for a short while. Currently commercial hunting is outlawed (and known as poaching), with pure subsistence hunting a very small portion of the legal hunting in the world today. - Rorybowman 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's no surprise; thanks for the clarification. I guess someone might one day feel moved to write an article about subsistence hunting in pre-agricultural societies, but even then the main "Hunting" article should be about sport hunting, so we still wouldn't change the template. — ciphergoth 08:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would take issue with the claim that subsistence hunting is a very small portion of the legal hunting in the world. This is again an issue of semantics, but hunting for food would surely be the majority of hunting that takes place. Trophy hunting and others being the exception rather than the rule. I realize that the majority of those who are using the term Blood sport in this context have a POV and may be seeking to advance it here. I would invite them to consider for a moment the fact that from an animal rights perspective hunting for food more desirable than any form of husbandry or ranching to produce meat. Animals killed by hunters suffer a much quicker and likely less-painful death than they would face in nature. A natural death is not a pretty one. It means death from sickness or being eaten by a predator. Furthermore, hunting reduces the demand for farmed animals. Animals killed by a hunter are permitted to spend their lives in concert with their instincts rather than in conflict with them as they would if raised in a factory farm. They are then killed quickly in what is likely the best death that could be hoped for in nature. Moreover, the hunter recognizes that his meal was produced as the result of the death of an animal, not in ingnorance of it as most who purchase plastic wraped meal. Why would those who seek to advance animal welfare alienate their fellow conservationists in the hunting community by attaching the loaded lable "blood sport".--Counsel 19:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the welfare debate to concentrate on the meaning of 'bloodsport', I think that it is difficult to verify either way whether "hunting for food would surely be the majority of hunting that takes place". We should bear in mind that hunting can be for both sport and food. For example hares can be coursed and eaten and pheasants can be shot by city businessmen and sold to game dealers. MikeHobday 06:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. Are you saying that if one enjoys hunting it is a blood sport, but if it is purely utilitarian (or presumably if it is disliked) it is not? By such a rationale a farmer who enjoys being outdoors is not farming for food, but for sport. The hunters that I know generally have venison in the freezer and it is a treat to eat it. They would not starve if they did not hunt. They could buy steaks at the supermarket instead. They also very much enjoy hunting. I would maintain that they hunt for food even though they enjoy the process. Many hunts are not unsuccessful, but are still very much enjoyed. Do such activities qualify as a blood sport? It just seems grossly overinclusive to say that because some hunting is a blood sport, then all hunting is a blood sport. This would be analagous to arguing that because some dog owners fight their dogs, dog ownership is a blood sport.--Counsel 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure we disagree completely. I am not saying that all hunting is a blood sport - I accept that some isn't. What I am saying is that eating the prey does not prevent that hunting from being a bloodsport. Animals can be killed for both for and pleasure. In which case, the activity is both 'for food' and 'for sport'. MikeHobday 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights vs animal welfare

Re-deleting as per your (very courteous!) invitation in my Talk page, Rorybowman. I'm still not seeing what it has to do with hunting. Surely it belongs somewhere in an article on animal rights/welfare? Thanks for flagging up the discussion. — ciphergoth 10:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

List of things that have been referred to as blood sports

I'm converting this to "List of blood sports" because it's clear to me that it's reflecting a view that is contrary to the definition given in the article. Boxing and mixed martial arts definitely does not by design include a risk of death or wounding. Both carries the risk of serious injury (broken bones, etc.) but such risks are within any other contact sport. Pro wrestling is not even a sport. The list of examples should include only commonly-accepted examples of blood sport, not the most liberal interpretations as that would not be a neutral point of view. hateless 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welfare Section

I am not sure what this section is trying to say. What "term" is is describing. Is it about the term "animal welfare" or "Blood Sport". It then says that something is fiercly denied by the "overwhelming majority", but does not say a majority of what. This section needs clean up and citations. I cannot do it as I am not sure what the point of the section is.--Counsel 00:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Added Point of View flag

This article needs a serious look at the neutrality of its POV. It appears to present an entirely negative viewpoint and seriously lacks broader perspective. I will be glad to help out, but to do so would have to have some indication from the people who've worked so hard on it that they would accept changes without considering them an "editing war". Trilobitealive 23:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To demonstrate the sort of POV editing I think is needed you may look at the opening paragraph, which is a tiny bit less slanted than before ;) Trilobitealive 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) I have another reference concerning the origin of the term itself, if anyone is interested: (link)Trilobitealive 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read the first sentence "... is a cruel sport that involves needless animal suffering" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.138.151 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Substantial Changes

I'm making some substantial changes in the section on animal welfare. These include changing the heading to Current Issues, adding references and expanding its subheadings. I'm also considering adding a separate section on unintended consequences but haven't decided if it should go in this article or another related one.

DRAT! Sorry guys I'm a rank newby and have forgotten the four tildes yet again!Trilobitealive 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced & irrelevant sources

I chopped these sources from the Current Issues section as they have nothing to do it bloodsports. Ashmoo 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Blood sport?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/03/environment.conservation It's the new sport for tourists: killing baby seals http://www.terradaily.com/2005/050127185620.64mgwt7y.html Seal-hunting becomes tourist sport in Norway

A quick web search turned up the above two articles and more. Seal hunting is being promoted as a sport in Norway, so even though it's not common, seal hunting can be considered a blood sport, I think. Bob98133 (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

List of blood sports

Bob98133 you have an itchy trigger finger. It must be from all the hunting you do. You shouldn't be so quick to revert someones edit until you've read the article or section in context. Your so gung-ho on this subject that your policing involves only looking at the revisions without rereading any of it.

Bear-baiting was redundant because it was listed on line 64 and again, a second time, just below on line 67. This is why it was removed. Hence the description in the edit summary as redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.8.106 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your edits. You're right - I only look at new changes and edit summary. The edit summary "Redundant" doesn't explain how or why. Referencing the talk page this time did explain the edit. There is room in the edit summary to write "Redundant, also mentioned in list above" or something similar. I could slow down my itchy trigger finger or you could explicitly explain your edits in the summary, or both. Thanks for explaining and putting in context. Bob98133 (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Gladiators/Etc.

This may seem kind of silly, but the first thing I always thought of when I heard the term "blood sport" was human vs. human (or other animal) combat which carried significant risk of death or serious injury, like the Gladiators in Ancient Rome. Humans are still animals, so I feel like there should be some kind of mention of this in the article, as the current definition stands. I actually couldn't find any reference to this sort of thing on Wikipedia, just an article on Gladiators; this is a pervasive theme in movies/fiction/etc., and wasn't just limited to Ancient Rome, so I feel like it deserves some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mello87 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Boxing?

I am removing "Boxing" from the section "List of Blood Sports". By the articles own definition "Bloodsport or blood sport is any sport or entertainment that involves violence against animals." While I suppose humans are animals, I don't think that boxing quite fits into this list. DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Article needs some reworking

I have added the citations broken template to the article. The last 2 citations are gone and the other 3 seem sketchy. The article could use a good rewriting overall, but to begin with it needs new and better citations.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pokemon as "virtual blood sport"?

I don't know if this has already been mentioned and/or discussed, but maybe something could be written about Pokemon and it being (or even NOT being) a "virtual" blood sport? As if the whole concept of blood sports has "evolved" with society to be more "kid friendly" or something?

Of course, it should be mentioned only if someone did a report on it... but then I wonder if someone HAS written a report on the subject? -- 71.141.121.26 (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have my doubts. Should we include mention of Connell's The Most Dangerous Game as well? Or the film adaptation? Rwessel (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Change in name or expansion of article

This article seems devoted to animal blood sports yet human have played in such sports in ancient Rome. Today in sports many allow limited blood sport for example boxing. I suggest that the article be changed to include humans or the title be changed to *animal blood sport* and if so a page for "human blood sport" be created. IPWAI (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• According to the Wikipedia:Five pillars it appears improvements do need to be made, in order to "avoid advocacy" and "properly characterize information and issues", an expansion or creation could be beneficial to wiki purposes and readers understandings. I would personally think an expansion would be the easiest way to go. All Worlds (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I was a little confused to see blood sports involving only humans on this page. I believe it should be split into 2 pages Blood sports (animals) and Blood sports (humans). __DrChrissy (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't only see blood sports involving humans on the page, I see human, animal and human animal, nor splits to other pages, but I would personally think an expansion on this page would be a way to go All Worlds (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - my writing was ambiguous. I meant that when I went to the page I was expecting to see blood sports involving non-human animals, not the human and human type such as boxing.DrChrissy (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

My own thinking is that there is no need to split this yet; I'd rather see one adequate article than two crummy stubs. I tend to lean away from it at present unless someone wants to expand both articles a bit so they stand alone with some quality. Also would be a lot of work doing redirects and sorting out where to link each, see over 250 articles link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Blood_sport&limit=250. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Chilean rodeo a blood sport?

I just read the article on Chilean rodeo and I do not see that blood is shed in any way during this. I was thinking of preparing a List of animals being harmed in entertainment, for which Chilean rodeo would qualify, but I am not sure it should be on a list of bloodsports according to the given definition. __DrChrissy (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose the proper interpretation of the definition of any sport or entertainment that causes bloodshed that is defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "a sport or contest (as hunting or cockfighting) involving bloodshed" would easily be determined by that which is “intended” and occurs readily as defined by the examples or comparisons of as hunting or cockfighting. But, the spectrum of “causes bloodshed” or “involves bloodshed” by definition then would also fall within a spectrum that would begin with bloodshed on every engagement of the sport or entertainment (which Merriam Webster defines as “the shedding of blood” or “the taking of a life”) and moves away to a “reasonably foreseeable” aspect from the first occurrence of “involving bloodshed” in the sport, where somewhere there was bloodshed that occurred and thus qualifying as a blood sport per the definition. From that point, just because a sport does not intend to cause bloodshed, but is “reasonably foreseeable” that bloodshed would occur again, would then be a blood sport within that interpretation of the definition. The issue on that interpretation of the definition would be a lack of comparison and not limiting the sport to that of comparisons of as hunting or cockfighting, in which bloodshed occurs readily as defined. At a minimum then for a “blood sport” to exist per this definition “bloodshed” is a prerequisite and has had to have occurred and the (as hunting and cockfighting) would need to be only compared within the realm of “having shed blood” and not to the intensity of the comparisons of “the taking of a life”, which seems to be the general consensus outside of hunting and cockfighting anyway. With that said and within my understanding of the definition, at the barest minimum even on the more docile side, “the shedding of blood” would have had to occurred in the Chilean rodeo at some point for it to be "a sport involving bloodshed", despite any lack of intention, it would still be defined as a blood sport within that definition as I understand it within that term.All Worlds (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, shouldn't the list include for animals, horse racing, rodeo and fishing, and for humans, ice-hockey etc?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to this page and should have first read the Talk above, especially regarding fishing. I will think about these comments and make a more cogent arguement.DrChrissy (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No apparent argument, just attempted proper interpretation of the defintion. Just reading the defintion in an unbiased interpretation. Yes, if that is the case, it would appear you are correct within my understanding, since the definition does not specify that bloodshed occur on each envolvement of activity, only that it involves any sport or entertainment "that causes bloodshed", nor would a judgment be placed to the intensity or severity of the examples, only that it "causes". But, this is just my understanding within the most liberal of interpretations within that definition. Had not those activities been enclosed within parentheses but written into the main wording of the definition, I think there would be a different and more strict understanding due to a qualifying factor. That's just how I understand it, correct me if I am wrong, and other involvement by individuals might be prudent in order to validate the understanding of the qualifying factor. Hope this helps. All Worlds (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Chilean rodeo is not intended to nor does it inherently lead to bloodshed in the manner of hunting, bullfighting, or various forms of animal fighting, where the probability of bloodshed is high, if not necessarily inevitable. In Chilean rodeo, the shedding of blood is NOT a desired outcome, though, obviously, there are animal abuse concerns due to injuries; but that isn't the same thing. I mean, if we count everything where a bloodletting injury occurs, then hopscotch could be classified as a blood sport due to all the skinned knees that may occur, but it is not. DrChrissy makes an excellent point about Ice Hockey, where bloodletting is often secretly hoped-for by many fans! I tossed it from the list for now, as it seems not to fit with the others as currently defined in the article. :-P Montanabw^(talk) 17:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Approval Request - "Giraffe Fighting"

Can someone take a look at this sandbox article and see how it can be improved? Is the quality of the article sufficient enough for it to be mentioned in the "Animal Fighting" sub-heading section of "Blood sport" article? —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at the article. It contains lots of interesting information, although I would be concerned about the quality of some of the sources. The section on "blood sports" is completely unsourced and therefore I think a link to this page at the moment would be a little premature. Add the source and I am sure this would be fine. Hope this helps.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Target for bloodsport redirect

Bloodsport (singular, not Bloodsports) currently redirects here. It's an uncommon spelling for "blood sport", but there's a number of items under that exact title listed on Blood sport (disambiguation). Therefore I propose that it gets retargeted to the disambiguation page. Thoughts? Daß Wölf (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

List of blood sports

Please see and comment at Talk:List of blood sports#Untitled.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)