Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon

Archive

---

Preliminary matters

A few preliminary matters before we get started - basically just whether you're happy with me mediating and where we're going to discuss things. My role here will be to help you all to reach agreement on the issue in dispute, not to express opinions or take sides. Hopefully by the end of this mediation you will be able to reach an outcome that is acceptable to all of you. I will try to guide you as to what issues it might be helpful for you to discuss - but this process is about you. If you're unhappy with the way things are going at any time, please let me know.

If you have any questions, you may contact me at any time, either via my talkpage or by email if you prefer (my email address is WJBscribe at gmail dot com). I will treat all email correspondence as strictly confidential. WjBscribe 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediator

Please sign here to confirm you're happy that I mediate this dispute:

• LWF 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yaf 03:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• SaltyBoatr 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• scot 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Location of this mediation

If there are no privacy issues of concern to any of you, this mediation can proceed on this talkpage. However if any of the you would prefer the discussions to take place in private, I can create accounts for you on the private MedComWiki and we can proceed there. Please indicate which option you think is best:

Happy to have discussions here

• LWF 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yaf 03:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• SaltyBoatr 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• scot 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Would prefer private mediation

Opening statements

OK, I've read through the various discussions you pointed me to on the mediation page. By their nature those evolve gradually and people's thoughts are spread over multiple threads and are pretty disorganised. Its often helpful if people can summarise their position on the issue in the question so we can see where everyone's coming from. So I'd like each participant under their name below to describe concisely what their view is on the appropriate name for the subject should and briefly why they hold that opinion. WjBscribe 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LWF

My position is that Hunting weapon is a satisfactory title, as several dictionaries (they have been listed elsewhere) have definitions supporting usage in hunting (ex. used to cause harm or injury) and as we have seen, there is historical precedent for non-combat usage (1880 being the earliest example we have found, although not necessarily the earliest). I do not support a move towards Sporting weapon, as the intent of the article as it currently stands is specifically for weapons used for hunting. Although I would support the creation of a separate article on weapons used for sport.--LWF 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yaf

Hunting weapon is the standard terminology most widely used in hunting regulations in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in parts of Europe for printed hunting regulations that are published in English when establishing criteria for arms that legally may be used for hunting purposes. It has no pejorative usages, and is the most commonly used term for the article topic at hand.

Hunting firearm is a much less inclusive term, for it omits primitive hunting weapons that are also discussed in the article (e.g., the atlatl, spear, bow & arrow, etc.) Such primitive weapons are often used during primitive hunting seasons that are regulated to occur separately from hunting seasons that permit more effective weapons. Also, under present US law, black powder replica arms are specifically not considered legally to be firearms, yet these arms are often used for hunting purposes, and are legally defined as weapons. For a multitude of reasons, hunting weapon is thus the most factually correct terminology for the topic of the article, as well as being the most commonly used, and is not an offensive term.

In contrast, sporting weapon is a pejorative term, formerly introduced in the 1930's in German firearms law, and subsequently introduced in US firearms law circa 1968 in an attempt to ban entire classes of arms from ownership by private citizens. Sporting weapon is also a term that is used in referring to hunting weapons intended for use by an elite class of users at the exclusion of subsistence hunters or "commoners" who hunt not solely for sport but for food. Killing animals solely for sport, without using their meat as food, is considered offensive by many hunters, especially when practiced by "sportsmen" who use "sporting weapons". Examples of such hunts include dove hunts, ground hog hunts, and fox hunts where the foxes are killed and not just chased. Sporting weapon is thus an extremely offensive term to many, for a multitude of reasons.

The title of an article on Wikipedia should be factually correct, inclusive, preferably non-pejorative if a non-pejorative term for a title exists, and should be the term that is most commonly used. Hunting weapon meets all these criteria. The other terms proposed to date by Saltyboatr for the title (e.g., hunting implement, hunting tool, hunting firearm, and sporting weapon) all fail to meet one or more of these criteria for the title of the article. Yaf 07:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr

Considering that Wikipedia is a battlefront in American gun politics, a big challenge for the mediator will be to separate the specific issue out from that bigger political battle. I oppose using Wikipedia as a political battlefront.

Yes, my perspective of the specific issue has evolved quite a bit. Previously, after reading the OED history of usages of the words weapon and hunting, I did not see literal usages of the word 'weapon' outside of war and combat to be global English. Also I saw that hunting refers to the act of the search and chase, not the killing. Historically, until the late 19th C. weapon implied combat.

Lately, I have been convinced that around 1880, the global English usage of the word weapon evolved to include 'sporting'. (To point out the elephant in the room: This parallels the revisionist history regarding the term 'bear arms', which experienced a similar drift is meaning during this same time frame.)

I have not yet been convinced of a 'hunting' usage being global English. Now, I favor renaming the article to Sporting weapon so that Wikipedia can be better aligned with global English. Perhaps this is a good middle ground compromise. SaltyBoatr 18:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I think it wise to err on the side of being conservative and mainstream regarding usage of the English language in Wikipedia. I believe that the Oxford English Dictionary is the best global authority on English usage. I base my evaluation of the meaning of 'hunting weapon' on the authority there. These other three editors are ignoring that authority and instead doing original research to establish their own meaning of the term 'hunting weapon'. I see no reason to give more authority to a popular vote of the opinion of four Wikipedia editors when we can instead look to the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary. SaltyBoatr 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

scot (Fluzwup)

First, I think the initial objection to hunting weapon was that weapon only applied in the context of warfare, and thus was not correctly used in the context of hunting. However, the OED 2nd Ed. cites the 1880 Encyclopedia Brittanica usage of weapon in the sentence The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter, establishing that weapon can be used in a sporting context, such as hunting.

Second, the claim was that sporting weapon was thus a superior title for the article. I object to this because weapon does still include in its definition the act of attack, and you don't attack an inanimate target. The only sporting use of a weapon therefore would be in the sport of hunting; all other sporting uses of, say, a firearm would not qualify it as a weapon, just like driving your car to work is not use of a weapon, while driving it into a crowd of pedestrians does make it a weapon. The only possible exception to a non-hunting sporting use of a weapon would be in the context of a duel, and that depends on the issue of dueling qualifying as a sport. Even given this, I would say that sporting weapon would then be a category, with dueling weapon and hunting weapon being the articles therein.

A final consideration is the usage of hunting weapon versus sporting weapon. Both terms appear in a variety of sources, from numerous countries, in sources such as media and legal codes. The term hunting weapon occurs far more frequently in a Google search, which, while not a perfect test, is a common and implicitly allowed step in determining notability of a topic (The Google Test, see here at 13:00). While that might at first seem to be original research, this is not data but rather meta-data, just like discussions on a talk page as to the reliability of various sources. Since hunting weapon is the far more common term worldwide (that being the orignal definition of standard English) it should be the title of the article, and sporting weapon should be either a superclass, as mentioned above, or a redirect. scot 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

OK, in order to move on it seems important to me to clarify what content this article should have. It seems rather difficult to name an article if unsure what exactly the article is to cover. If we can agree what the article is going to be "about" - as in what is within its scope and what is outside, it may be easier to progress the naming discussion. I'm not sure from reading discussions whether you all picture the article's content in the same way, so it would be helpful if you could clarify. It strikes me that there are a number of "things" (for want of a better word) that can be used to hunt. I will brainstorm them below:

1. Firearms
2. Bow and arrows / crossbows
3. Knives and other bladed implements
4. Spears and other sharpened implements
5. Clubs and other blunt implements
6. Fishing implements - fishing poles through to harpoons
7. Traps - snares, mantraps etc.
8. Animals - hounds etc.

Do expand this list if something occurs to you that I have omitted. Do you feel that all of these things come within the scope of the article, or are there some that you feel should not be included. WjBscribe 20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

LWF

Your list seems satisfactory to me insofar as it refers to hunting; trapping and fishing are different sports. Although I will say including animals is debatable, although that usage does agree with some definitions of weapon, as the animals are used to gain an advantage when used in hunting. --LWF 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification here--in some sports the animals are the weapons, as they are used to take down the game. Many breeds of sighthound, for example, were bred to run down and capture the game, rather than to track, flush, or retrieve it. scot 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yaf

Establishing the scope of the article is extremely important as a necessary first step in defining the content that is appropriate and that the article should cover. Nonetheless, hunting, trapping, and fishing are three entirely different topics, being treated entirely differently by Fish & Game wardens, Fish & Game laws, and, in general, even by the practitioners. They are fundamentally different activities. This article is about the weapons used for hunting. It is not about the traps used to trap animals. It is not about the fishing rods used to catch fish. Rather it is about the weapons used for hunting. As for the sub-topics that do make sense for inclusion, based on a long history of hunting that dates back millenia, and the weapons that have been used, such weapons as spears, atlatls, clubs, swords, falcons and other birds of prey trained for use in falconry, and even dogs, make a good deal of sense for inclusion. Similarly, a wide range of more modern weapons make a good deal of sense, as well, with significant treatment being necessary for modern firearms and black powder weapons, which together date their usage back about 800 years. Coverage of all of these hunting weapons is needed to bring the article up to featured article status.

Trapping, on the other hand, is not generally considered a form of hunting; trapping of animals for live capture, useful for tagging animals for wildlife research purposes, is not used in the same sense generally as hunting for food. There are a few exceptions, for example a rabbit box, used by small boys in the American south to trap rabbits, that are baited with vegetable leftovers and other tablescrap items, with a trigger mechanism extending into the trap or box that the animal trips while eating the bait; such traps are useful for holding a live rabbit confined until it is possible to perform a quick dispatch with a small .22 LR pistol hunting weapon, with the intent to add the rabbit to the kitchen pot. Fishing is not considered hunting either. Nonetheless, there are a few hunting weapons that have multiple uses between both fishing and hunting; for example, harpoons are sometimes used for catching large rough fish (carp, etc.), while also being used for hunting whales and even alligators. Hunting is generally about taking mammals or birds or reptiles for food (e.g., rabbits, squirrels, quail, pheasants, frogs, alligators, etc.) This article is about the weapons used for hunting these animals. Fishing, on the other hand, is about the taking of fish from either fresh water or salt water. Trapping is a topic that has overlap with hunting, but is generally considered a different discipline. In general, though, we should not confuse the usage of some common items in multiple disciplines (hunting, trapping, fishing) through confusing the disciplines themselves. Establishing the scope of the article is a very important first step in crafting a good article. Yaf 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr

The scope of the article is not really important to the issue at dispute; which is: English usage. Shall our English usage be determined by popular vote and original research? Or, shall we rely upon recognized authority? SaltyBoatr 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You may need to clarify this comment for me. I find it difficult to discuss which word in English is appropriate for the title of an article without knowing first what that word is going to describe. Words have definitions - without knowing what we are trying to define it seems difficult to work out what the appropriate words is. You may have been familiar with this article and subject for some time, I am new to it. It seems best to be clear at the outset on these matters... WjBscribe 22:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair question, I will try to answer. Yaf, above[1], says "this article is about weapons used for hunting". I point out that the Oxford English Dictionary has not indicated that the word 'weapon' used in context of 'hunting' to be proper usage of the English language. Yaf wants to use a variant form of English as the basis of the topic of the article. The fundamental question is: Should we use a variant form of English? I argue that doing so would be akin to 'original research', and that it is preferable to look to the most reliable authority, the Oxford English Dictionary, to find what is proper usage of the English language.

That said, I can be flexible about the scope of the article. I have suggested the topic be about sporting weapons, but that was declined. If the editors want it to be about hunting implements, that is OK with me. Yaf has previously indicated that he only wants to include the killing implements, and therefore must use a variant form of the word 'weapon'. Yet, I do not understand a reason to limit the focus only on the killing as, per the OED, hunting is about the pursuit not the killing. In any case, I oppose using variant words in the title. SaltyBoatr 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

scot (Fluzwup)

Essential in my mind's concept of "hunting" is the pursuit of the game. Fishing I see as a subset of trapping, and trapping I don't consider hunting as it does not involve any pursuit, and in fact the trapper doesn't even need to be present when the game is taken (this applies to fishing, as well, with rod holders and trotlines). While this is admittedly a blurry and highly subjective line (is use of a tree stand hunting by that definition, and what about fish finding sonars?) hunting, fishing, and trapping are legally regulated under different sets of laws, and I think these reflect the practical usage of the terms. Other than those exceptions, the list looks good to me--I had forgotten about clubs, but they were commonly used to hunt seals a century ago. Knives I might combine with spears, since a spear is for all practical purposes a knife on a stick--and in fact some survival knives are made to be bound to sticks for just that reason. scot 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thought--since there is a category of "non lethal weapons" or "less lethal weapons", that might be worth a subsection here as well; animals are often hunted and captured alive for various purposes, such as for relocation or research. scot 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reguarding the use of the word "hunt"; the term Hunt saboteur is defined by the Oxford University Press as "a person who attempts to disrupt a hunt", and the Hunt Saboteurs Association is dedicated to "actively oppose blood sports". The usage of "hunt" in "hunting weapon" is exactly the same as in "hunt saboteur". scot 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The Concise OED is vastly different than the Oxford English Dictionary. SaltyBoatr 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So is the COED wrong? You seem to be acting under the assumption that all dictionaries other than the OED are incorrect, since you refuse to accept any word definition from any other source. What's the OED definition of "hunt sabotuer"? scot 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The OED is widely recognized[2] at the best authority on English usage. COED Wrong? I think your reading of the concise OED appears needlessly convoluted, exploiting ambiguity, contrived to push your point of view. SaltyBoatr 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well. First let me start by reiterating that English dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and that there is no such thing as an authoritative source for the English language. Lacking an authoritative source, one must look at the widest number of secondary sources to avoid bias. Here is a list of definitions from the online dictionaries listed in dictionary::

• Hunt TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To pursue (game) for food or sport. 2. To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges. 3. To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game. 4. To pursue intensively so as to capture or kill: hunted down the escaped convict. 5. To seek out; search for. 6. To drive out forcibly, especially by harassing; chase away: hunted the newcomers out of town. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000
• Hunt (CHASE) verb [I or T] 1 to chase and try to catch and kill an animal or bird for food, sport or profit: Some animals hunt at night. When lion cubs are young, the mother stays with them while the father hunts for food. Jack and Charlie like to hunt/go hunting (= chase and kill animals for sport) at weekends. Cats like to hunt mice and birds. Elephants used to be hunted for the ivory from their tusks. 2 in Britain, to chase and kill animals, especially foxes, using dogs and riding on horses Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
• Hunt transitive verb 1 a : to pursue for food or in sport <hunt buffalo> b : to manage in the search for game <hunts a pack of dogs> 2 a : to pursue with intent to capture <hunted the escapees> b : to search out : SEEK 3 : to drive or chase especially by harrying <members...were hunted from their homes -- J. T. Adams> 4 : to traverse in search of prey <hunts the woods> Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary
• Hunt verb 1 to chase wild animals or birds in order to catch or kill them for food, sport or to make money: [v] Lions sometimes hunt alone. * [vn] Whales are still being hunted and killed in the Arctic. 2 [v] ~ (for sth) to look for sth that is difficult to find syn search: I’ve hunted everywhere but I can’t find it. * She is still hunting for a new job. 3 ~ (for) sb to look for sb in order to catch them or harm them: [vn] Police are hunting an escaped criminal. * [v] Detectives are hunting for thieves who broke into a warehouse yesterday. 4 [v, vn] (in Britain) to chase and kill foxes as a sport, riding horses and using dogs Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
• Hunt verb 1 pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food. 2 (also hunt for or after) try to find by diligent searching. 3 (hunt down) pursue and capture (someone). 4 hunted appearing alarmed or harassed as if being hunted. 5 (of a device) undergo a cyclic variation in its working speed. Compact Oxford English Dictionary

Since you accuse me of being manipulative and baised, I included the entire definition of each, from all relevant dictionaries in the list (I excluded the Spanish-English dictionary, since it provided no definition). I choose the transitive verb tense when given, and the entire verb tense when not differentiated; if you object to this I can include other verb forms, nouns, and other parts of speech, but they are all defined in terms of the transitive verb. Oh, and on the topic of bias, the source you listed that sings the praises of the OED (as an historical record, I note) is published by Oxford University Press. scot 19:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this section supposed to be about the scope?--LWF 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well to an extent this is about scope. The objection raised was I do not understand a reason to limit the focus only on the killing as, per the OED, hunting is about the pursuit not the killing. In any case, I oppose using variant words in the title. As per the definitions cited above, the number one definition of hunt from all above sources includes both the pursuit and capture, with a possibility killing (pretty much required if you're going to eat it), the game. Four of the five sources state "for food or sport", and the fifth "for sport or food". By these definitions, it seems that killing is within the scope of hunting. scot 19:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to focus on the main point, I will skip your tangential points. The Oxford English Dictionary is indeed only descriptive of the usages of the English language. Indisputably, they offer the most comprehensive collection of descriptions of worldwide English usages. And, the OED does not recognized or document usage of the term 'hunting weapon'. Regarding your 'prescriptive' complaint, yes, the OED is not prescriptive. Rather, the editors of this encyclopedia hold the prescriptive role. We should decide which usages of English are proper. That is the nut of our disagreement. I contend that our standard should be: usage that is so extremely variant that it is not recognized by the most comprehensive dictionary available, the OED, should be considered to be too variant for our encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is the most comprehensive doesn't mean it is completely comprehensive.--LWF 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

True. It does not document all the variants of English. The editors of Wikipedia need to decide how to establish a standard as to which variants of English are acceptable. I maintain that a reasonable standard would be whether the variant is documented by the OED. Another possible standard is the Google test, that is: does the variant appear, to some notable degree, in a Google search. I think that a Google test standard is a bad standard because it is too much like 'original research' and that 'notable degree' is subjective. Better to defer to the judgment of experts at the OED. SaltyBoatr 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I will say two things: First, I think that the way to get the most comprehensive definition of a word is to consult multiple dictionaries, as the editors of one may overlook something or take a long time to update portions. Second, how would you define (or the OED define) sporting weapon?--LWF 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please. You advise us to consult multiple dictionaries, but then, by your question it is apparent you have reached your conclusion without following your own advice. Have you read the OED definition? SaltyBoatr 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go, relevant definitions from the 2nd Ed. OED

• hunt v. I. 1. a. intr. To go in pursuit of wild animals or game; to engage in the chase. Also of animals: To pursue their prey. 2. trans. To pursue (wild animals or game) for the purpose of catching or killing; to chase for food or sport; often spec. to pursue with hounds or other tracking beasts. Also said of animals chasing their prey.
• hunting vbl. n. 1. The action of the verb HUNT. a. The action or practice of chasing game or other wild animals, either for profit or sport; the chase; venery. {dag}2. concr. Game killed in hunting. (Cf. VENISON.) Obs. 3. attrib. and Comb. a. General: Of, belonging to, used or worn in, adapted for, or engaged in hunting, as hunting-bit, boat, -boot, -bout, bridle, -cap, carpet, -clothes, -coat, -country, -craft, -cry, -day, -dress, -excursion, -frock, -gear, -habit, -hat, -horse, -javelin, -knife, -language, -nag, -net, -party, path, -place, -pole, pony, print, rifle, -saddle, -season, -skirt, -spear, -spur, -staff, -sword, -term, -tide, tie, -toil, -voyage, -whip; for the accommodation of huntsmen, as hunting-camp, -house, -lodge, tower, or of horses used in hunting, as hunting-stable.

scot 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Scot, I appreciate this constructive effort at collaborative research to find the answer to this question. After reading this, we probably agree that the action of 'hunting' refers to the pursuit. Killing or catching game is the intended end purpose after the pursuit but not the actual action 'to hunt'. Also, please notice that for the attributive and combined usages, notably absent is "-weapon". When you check the OED literal usages of 'weapon' you see that a weapon invariably involves combat or warfare, and hunting is not that. SaltyBoatr 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hunting weapon is a commonly-used expression often appearing in formally-written English. The Oxford English Dictionary is not the only acceptable source meeting reliability and verifiability criteria for use in writing articles for Wikipedia. For example, consider the following international examples of the use of the phrase “hunting weapon“ in English language sources:

• Hungarian National Museum : Hunting weapons from the 15th century until today
• New Zealand hunting laws on hunting weapons
• Mississippi Proposed Hunting weapon restrictions
• ESPN article on crossbows not always being recognized as a legal hunting weapon
• Latvian hunting regulation summary, requiring that a “hunting weapon” must be used for hunting (and not a military weapon)
• Hungarian regulations on hunting weapons
• Russian Federation laws requiring compensation for seizure of hunting weapons
• 4th Circuit ruling containing observation of differences between a hunting weapons versus weapons intended for use in a criminal offense

Clearly, "hunting weapon" is a commonly-used term in English. From the widespread international use noted previously, it is not credible to believe that "hunting weapon" is even a variant form of English. Whether or not the Oxford English Dictionary has this particular construct is really not pertinent to the discussions at hand. There are other references in the world suitable for Wikipedia other than the OED. It is not WP policy that only the OED may be used as a reference. Yaf 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to discuss and agree on which authority to use to determine the answer to this question. Yaf has done the Google search test, which indisputably is his own original research. I am looking to a widely respected expert authority, the Oxford English Dictionary. SaltyBoatr 03:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

OK. If I've understood the points you have all been making, there seems to be general agreement that hunting should be treated as something distinct from fishing and trapping. A new issue that seems to have come up is whether we are concerned only with what is used to actually make the kill or whether the article should be wider than that. I would appreciate brief thoughts on this - is this a source of disagreement? WjBscribe 21:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think if it involves activity on the part of the captor then it is not trapping and is hunting. To clarify, if the person goes with a tranquilizer gun, and shoots an animal, then he is hunting. If they put a cage down and bait it they are trapping. One is actively pursuing the prey, while the other is merely waiting for a device to do it for them.--LWF 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with LWF. If the hunter chooses the target and has to take action (pull the trigger, throw the spear, release the arrow) then it's hunting, whether the game is actively or passively pursued. Fishing for the most part is a form of trapping, as the fisherman waits for the fish to take the bait and trap itself, he doesn't choose the fish he wants. Spear fishing and bow fishing I'd categorize as hunting, even though they may legally be regulated as fishing due to the nature of the game. As far as scope goes, hunting weapons cover the entire scope of human history, from early cave paintings and elaborate arrowheads formed by lithic reduction, the mysterious "tuning" stones of the atlatl, to modern English express rifles and Italian fowling shotguns which cost over US$100,000. scot 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This hunting weapon article should be limited to the weapon(s) actually used to make the kill. For example, a deer stand, consisting of a ladder-type mechanism used for climbing a tree, is a tool that aids a hunter while hunting, but is not, in and of itself, a hunting weapon. A hunter standing on a branch in a tree would still likely be able to take the deer; neither the tree nor the hunting stand would be regarded as hunting weapons. Neither would the scents used by hunters to mask their own scent, or the doe scents used to lure a buck, be considered weapons. The point that LWF makes, regarding activity being required by the hunter at the moment that the animal is taken, is a good one, and, like scot, I concur with LWF on this point. Activity is required by a trapper, true, but not at the moment that the animal is taken; rather, the trap is set in advance of the arrival of the animal, and the trap then works with or without the hunter being present at the moment of its use. The terminology "Hunting weapon" fundamentally assumes that a successful hunt results in the killing of an animal, whether for obtaining food, or to dispose of vermin (e.g, rats in a corn crib) that attacks one's own food or one's domesticated animals' food, through the use of a weapon. Although "hunt" certainly means the search, and not necessarily the killing, the fundamental goal of hunting is the killing of an animal. An old hunting joke goes as follows: what do you call a bad hunter? (Ans. a vegetarian). The tacit assumption is that successful hunting results in the killing of an animal :-) Yaf 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually as I recall, some of the definitions of weapon did state capture or kill.--LWF 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you check, the vast majority of recorded usages of 'weapon' involve a context of warfare and combat, not hunting at all. SaltyBoatr 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet we have seen non-combat, non-war uses, inside and outside the OED.--LWF 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in figurative, poetic, vulgar, tranferance and variant English usages. None of those are appropriate for the title of a Wikipedia article. SaltyBoatr 18:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So, which of these does sporting weapon fall under, if all non-combat usages are non-wikipedia compliant per your opinion.--LWF 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You ask my opinion, I am trying to not interject my opinion, but instead rely upon credible sourcing. As to sourcing I am reading the OED, I don't know exactly what they mean when they write "The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter. " but they point to Volumne XI, page 278 of the 1880 Encyclopedia Britannica. In any case, again I see 'sporting and military' with the proximity to combat apparent yet again. SaltyBoatr

Well, I don't see a copy of the 1880 Britannica, but I do have access to the 1911 version, which is widely considered to be a huge step forward in the evolution of the encyclopedia.

From the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica, full page TIFF scans at Wikisource

• Weapon, volume 28 p. 438, entire entry

"Weapon (O. Eng. wapen, cf. Du. wapen, Ger. Wappe, also Wappen, a coat of arms, heraldic sheild) any instrument of offence or defence, more usually a term confined to offensive or attacking instruments. The general sketch of the history and development of weapons of offensce and defence is given under ARMS AND ARMOUR; particular weapons are treated under such heads as HALBERD, LANCE, SPEAR, SWORD, GUN, PISTOL, ROFLE, ORDNANCE AND MACHINE-GUNS."

• Arms and Armour, volume 2, page 582, first sentence of entry

"Under this heading are included weapons of offence (arms) and defensive equipment (armour)."

• Hunting, volume 13 p. 947, first full paragraph of page

"Originally among the northern nations sport was open to every one except to slaves, who were not permitted to bear arms..."

So, following the trail of definitions, we see that a weapon is "an instrument of offence or defence", and "weapons of offence" are classified as "arms". The sport of hunting in the Teutonic nations (those being "the northern nations" in question) was not open to slaves, because slaves were not permitted to bear arms. No arms, means no offensive weapons, means no hunting. Nowhere in there is "warfare" or "combat" implicitly or explicitly required as a condition of "arms" or "weapons". scot 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. 'Weapons of offence' seem clearly to be of a sense of combat or warfare. Offensive hunting seems to be a non sequiteur considering that hunting means 'the chase' as opposed to taking an offensive position. Neither does defensive hunting make sense. You make such a convoluted stretch to prove your point. SaltyBoatr 00:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "chase" is defined in terms of hunting, not vice versa:

• chase 1 verb 1 pursue in order to catch. 2 rush or cause to go in a specified direction. 3 try to obtain (something owed or required). noun 1 an act of chasing. 2 (the chase) hunting as a sport.

And note that "to catch" is right there in definition 1. Nowhere do I see any evidence to support the claim that the adjective "offensive" has any requirement of a military connection. On the contrary:

• offence (US offense) noun 1 an illegal act; a breach of a law or rule. 2 resentment or hurt. 3 the action of making a military attack. 4 N. Amer. the attacking team in a sport.

While "military" is in there, it's certainly not the primary definition in any but the noun form of "offensive" as in "the Tet Offensive". "Weapon of offence" by definition 1 would be "Weapon of illegal act", which works but it not relevant in this context, and by definition 2 would be "Weapon of resentment or hurt", which, as I have maintained from the beginning, does apply to implements used to cause harm. Definitions taken from the COED. scot 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Scot and Yaf, could you please restate your thoughts using WP:NOR principles? Wikipedia is not a place for your personal essay though also you may consider moving this to Wikinfo. SaltyBoatr 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

fish • verb 1 catch fish with a net or hook and line. (COED)

trap • noun 1 a device or enclosure designed to catch and retain animals. • verb (trapped, trapping) 1 catch or hold in or as in a trap. (COED)

I think the previous covers it pretty well--trapping requires a device designed to retain the animal, and so would seem to exclude, for example, lying in wait with a bow or rifle, and the definition of fishing does not include spearfishing. scot 18:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Encylopedia Britannica use of "hunting weapon"

I found a feature of Google I had not previously noticed, a "book search". Doing a book search for "hunting weapon" turned up not only a bunch of scholarly anthropological articles, but also a use in Encyclopedia Britannica:

From here: "Though the bow was displaced as a weapon of war in the 15th century, it was retained as a hunting weapon and a versatile instrument for other kinds of agreeable pastime." Note that the bow is only described as a "weapon" for hunting and war, not for other (presumably marksmanship) uses, using "weapon" exactly as I have been maintaining it should be used since the beginning.

Other notable uses of "hunting weapon", in histories and anthropological books:

• Narrative of a journey from Lima to Para, by W. Smyth and F. Lowe by William Smyth, Frederick Lowe - 1836
• American Anthropologist by American Anthropological Association, American Ethnological Society - 1888
• The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks by Hugo Blümner - 1895
• Man by the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland - 1910
• The Influence of Invention on Civilization by Morris De Camp Crawford - 1942
• Man by the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland - 1948
• Ecology and Culture of the Pastoral Tuareg: With Particular Reference to the Tuareg of Ahaggar by Johannes. Nicolaisen - 1963
• The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization by Brian Fagan - History - 2004

This in addition to the aforementioned documented uses in various laws and sporting publications certainly seems to cover a very broad spectrum of English speakers. scot 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your original research and Yaf's original research into the usage of the English language. First, we first need to decide: Shall we rely upon the OED expert authority as to usage of the English language? Or, shall we use your original research? I is no surprise that using your Google searches can find many instances of 'hunting weapon' in English. (In analogy, you could also find billions of examples of mis-spelled words using Google, and even mis-spellings inside the Encyclopedia Britannica.)

The question is: Has the threshold of this usage crossed into mainstream global English? The OED indicates that it has not yet done so, (and they are a powerful recognized authority in this regard). You can keep on cherry picking 'hunting weapon' using your Google searches for a long long time without answering the 'threshold of usage' question. SaltyBoatr 14:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps clarification is needed. These google searches are for uses in books, and also laws. These are not in fact original research anymore then researching the definition of a word from a dictionary is original research. It is simply finding the research of others and using it as a source. Quite simply, he was doing as Wikipedians are supposed to, look for credible research.--LWF 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So you immediately assume Encyclopedia Britannica and hundreds of other scholarly publications, hunting laws, and topcial books are incorrect, but that the OED might have an ommision is inconceivable? I have shown mainstream global, mainstream usage of the term, for a period of over 150 years, from sources the OED itself quotes. If it makes you feel any better, consider that the article is going back to the first documented hunting weapon, the spear (in it's original incarnation just a straight, pointy stick), and thus may be considered an article in the field of anthropology. Certainly that's the direction I see the article moving. In fact, based on what I'm seeing in the Google books search, many weapons of war started out as hunting weapons--the bow and arrow and the rifle, for example, were used for hunting long before they were used in warfare. At any rate, I think I have provided ample evidence to prove that either your interpretation of the OED is incorrect, or the OED itself is incorrect on this topic. You, on the other hand, have failed to provide a single instance that explicitly states that the term "weapon" applies only to warfare, or that the modern day, global useage of "hunting" predominately applies to cases where you just follow an animal around without intent of capturing or killing it. Your claim after all, is that "X is not Y", and my burden of proof therefore is to provide examples where "X is Y" and your claim is therefore disproven. scot 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The question at hand pertains to usage of the English language. You have researched the usages of the English term 'hunting weapon' in various sources, (you claim "hundreds of scholarly publications" with obvious exaggeration). You have reached a different conclusion than the Oxford English Dictionary. Indeed, there is a chance that you are right and the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong. Who should we believe? I look to WP:V for guidance and I see that what matters more than 'truth' in our encyclopedia is verifiability. I argue that the OED has better verifiability than you and your exaggerated 'research'. SaltyBoatr 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Obvious exageration? Obviously not. Here is a selection of 136 references to "hunting weapon", gleaned from a Google Books search, restricted to use related to anthropology:

• A Black Civilization: A Social Study of an Australian Tribe - Page 485 by William Lloyd Warner - 1958 - 618 pages
• A Field Guide to Conservation Archaeology in North America - Page 107 by McHargue, Georgess - Social Science - 1977
• A Journey Through Afghanistan: A Memorial - Page 161 by David Chaffetz - Travel - 2002 - 258 pages
• A Physical Survey of the Kadar of Kerala - Page 6 by Sasanka Sekhar Sarkar - 1960 - 83 pages
• A Profile of Primitive Culture - Page 74 by Elman Rogers Service - 1958 - 474 pages
• Abstracts on Police Science - Page v by Criminologica Foundation - 1979
• Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People - Page 65 by Kim ( Hill, A. Magdalena Hurtado - Social Science - 1996 - 561 pages
• Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum Humgaricae - Page 342 by Magyar Tudományos Akadémia - 1990
• Adult Learning and Technology in Working-Class Life - Page 41 by Peter Harold Sawchuk - Education - 2003 - 272 pages
• African Axes - Page 110 by Carl Gösta Widstrand - 1958 - 164 pages
• American Anthropologist - Page 313 by American Anthropological Association, American Ethnological Society - 1994
• American Ethnologist - Page 776 by American Ethnological Society, American Anthropological Association - 1974
• An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology - Page 408 by Robert Harry Lowie - 1946 - 584 pages
• An Introduction to Hominology: An Integrated View of Mankind and Self - Page 345 by Theodore Charles Kahn - 1972 - 384 pages
• Analytical & Critical Bibliography of the Tribes of Tierra Del Fuego & Adjacent Territory (1917) - Page 209 by John M. Cooper - Social Science - 2003 - 244 pages
• Ancient People of the Arctic - Page 117 by Robert MacGhee - Social Science - 1996 - 244 pages
• Annual Review of Anthropology - Page 396 by Annual Reviews, inc, HighWire Press, JSTOR (Organization), E. Valentine Daniel, Bambi Schieffelin, William H. Durham, Bernard J. Siegel, Alan R. Beals, Stephen A. Tyler - Social Science - 1972
• Anthropological Papers - Page 15 1949
• Anthropological Papers - Page 265 by Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology - 1966
• Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History - Page 218 by American Museum of Natural History - 1954
• Anthropology - Page 384 by Alfred Louis Kroeber - 1923 - 523 pages
• Anthropology: The Study of Man - Page 201 by Edward Adamson Hoebel - Social Science - 1972 - 756 pages
• Antropológica - Page 19 by Sociedad de Ciencias Naturales La Salle - 1956
• Archaeology - Page 323 by Archaeological Institute of America - 1948
• Asian Perspectives - Page 13 by Far-Eastern Prehistory Association, Hong Kong - 1962
• Beyond Subsistence: Plains Archaeology and the Postprocessual Critique by Philip Duke, Michael Wilson - Social Science - 1995 - 320 pages
• Beyond the Visible and the Material: The Amerindianization of Society in the Work of Peter Riviere - Page 85 by Laura M. Rival, Neil L. Whitehead, Peter Rivière - Social Science - 2001 - 322 pages
• Boomerang: Behind an Australia Icon - Page 44 by Philip G. Jones - History - 1996 - 140 pages
• Contributions to Anthropology - Page 157 by National Museum of Canada - 1971
• Culture History and African Anthropology: A Century of Research in Germany and Austria - Page 27 by Jürgen Zwernemann - 1983 - 170 pages
• Dictionary of Anthropology - Page 505 by Charles Winick - Social Science - 1958
• Elements of Folk Psychology: Outlines of a Psychological History of the Development of Mankind - Page 27 by Wilhelm Max Wundt - 1916 - 532 pages
• Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences by Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman - Social Science - 1930
• Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology - Page 42 by Barbara Ann Kipfer - Social Science - 2000 - 708 pages
• Essays in the Science of Culture: In Honor of Leslie A. White, in Celebration of His Sixtieth ... - Page 382 by Robert Leonard Carneiro, Gertrude Evelyn Dole - 1960 - 509 pages
• Ethnos - Page 17 by Statens etnografiska museum (Sweden) - 1936
• Ethnos - Page 58 by Statens etnografiska museum (Sweden) - 1999
• Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History - Page 176 by Robert Leonard Carneiro - Social Science - 2003
• Folk - Page 231 by Dansk etnografisk forening - 1959
• Folsom: New Archaeological Investigations of a Classic Paleoindian Bison Kill - Page 360 by David J. Meltzer - Social Science - 2006 - 387 pages
• Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition - Page 222 by Paul F. Reed, Shirley Gorenstein - Social Science - 2000 - 293 pages
• Frameworks for Dating Fossil Man - Page 209 by Kenneth Page Oakley, ( - 1966 - 355 pages
• From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic Paleo-Indian Adaptations - Page 325 by Olga Soffer, N. D. Praslov - Social Science - 1993 - 354 pages
• From Mukogodo To Maasai: Ethnicity and Cultural Change in Kenya - Page 39 by Lee Cronk - Social Science - 2004 - 172 pages
• Growing Up in a Culture of Respect: Child Rearing in Highland Peru - Page 214 by Inge Bolin - Social Science - 2006 - 214 pages
• Habitat, Economy and Society: A Geographical Introduction to Ethnology - Page 269 by Cyril Daryll Forde, ( - 1950 - 500 pages
• Handbook to the Ethnographical Collections - Page 129 by Thomas Athol Joyce, British Museum Dept. of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography, Ormonde Maddock Dalton - 1910 - 304 pages
• Human Ecology: Biocultural Adaptations in Human Communities - Page 112 by Holger. Schutkowski - Nature - 2006 - 303 pages
• In the Eyes of the Beholder: Leadership and the Social Construction of Power and Dominance Among ... - Page 80 by Dan Rosengren - 1987 - 231 pages
• Indians of the Southwest - Page 190 by Mary Jourdan Atkinson - 1958 - 333 pages
• Isabel Flick: The many lives of an extraordinary Aboriginal woman - Page 259 by H / Flick Goodall, I, Isabel Flick - Social Science - 2004 - 288 pages
• Japanese Industry in the American South - Page 7 by Choong-Soon Kim - Business & Economics - 1995
• Journal of Anthropological Research - Page 88 by University of New Mexico - 1973
• Journal of Asian and African Studies - Page 145 by York University (Toronto, Ont.). Dept. of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, York University, York University. Department of Sociology and Anthropology - 1966
• Leakey's Luck: the life of Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey, 1903-1972 - Page 143 by Sonia Mary Cole - Biography & Autobiography - 1975 - 448 pages
• Man - Page 136 by Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland - 1995
• Man in India - Page 79 by Sarat Chandra Roy, Man in India Office - 1921
• Man in Perspective: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology - Page 19 by Cara Elizabeth Richards, ( - 1972 - 335 pages
• Man Past and Present - Page 382 by Augustus Henry Keane - 1920 - 582 pages
• Man: An Autobiography - Page 76 by George Rippey Stewart - 1946 - 310 pages
• Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association - Page 65 by American Anthropological Association, American Anthropological Society - 1961
• Method in Prehistory: An Introduction to the Discipline of Prehistoric Archaeology, with Special ... - Page 32 by Astley John Hilary Goodwin - 1953 - 184 pages
• Munera archaeologica Iosepho Kostrzewski quinquagesimum annum optimarum artium studiis deditum ... - Page 73 by Poznanskie Towarzystwo Przjaciól Nauk - 1963 - 427 pages
• Museums and Source Communities: A Routledge Reader - Page 32 by Laura Lynn Peers, Alison Kay Brown - Antiques & Collectibles - 2003 - 336 pages
• Nature And the Environment in Pre-columbian American Life - Page 34 by Stacy Kowtko - Nature - 2006
• Nomads of the Borneo Rainforest: The Economics, Politics, and Ideology of Settling Down - Page 116 by Bernard Sellato - Social Science - 1994
• Our Earliest Ancestors - Page 99 by Björn Kurtén - Science - 1993
• Our Prehistoric Forerunners - Page 204 by Colwyn Edward Vulliamy - 1925 - 214 pages
• Peoples of the Philippines - Page 43 by Herbert William Krieger - 1942 - 86 pages
• Picturing the Primitive: Visual Culture, Ethnography, and Early German Cinema - Page 91 by Assenka Oksiloff - Performing Arts - 2001 - 240 pages
• Population Review - Page 151 by Indian Institute for Population Studies - 1957
• Practical Anthropology - Page 258
• Preadamites: Or, A Demonstraiton of the Existence of Men Before Adam; Together with a Study of ... - Page 343 by Alexander Winchell - 1890 - 526 pages
• Preadamites: Together with a Study of Their Condition, Antiquity, Racial Affinities, and ... - Page 343 by Alexander Winchell - 1880 - 500 pages
• Primitive Law, Past And Present - Page 174 by Arthur Sigismund Diamond - Law - 2004 - 440 pages
• Proceedings of the United States National Museum - Page 285 by United States. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution, United States Dept. of the Interior - 1968
• Processual Archaeology: Exploring Analytical Strategies, Frames of Reference, and Culture Process - Page 135 by Amber L. Johnson - 2004 - 364 pages
• Projectile Technology - Page 98 by Heidi Knecht - Technology - 1997 - 432 pages
• Psychology and Modern Problems - Page 66 by Morris Ginsberg - Psychology - 1973
• Publication ... of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics - Page 234 by Indiana University. Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics - 1955
• Readings in Anthropology - Page 142 by Edward Adamson Hoebel - 1955 - 417 pages
• Scottish Geographical Magazine - Page 443 by Royal Scottish Geographical Society - 1998
• Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1888-1920 - Page 464 by Alfred Irving Hallowell - 1960 - 930 pages
• Signifying Animals: Human Meaning in the Natural World - Page 202 by Roy G. Willis - Social Science - 1994
• Simply Human Beings - Page 20 by Edward G. Docker - 1964 - 260 pages
• Social Life of Early Man - Page 183 by Sherwood Larned Washburn - Social Science - 2004 - 299 pages
• Survival by Hunting: Prehistoric Human Predators and Animal Prey - Page 202 by George C. Frison - Sports & Recreation - 2004 - 285 pages
• Tausug Armed Conflict: The Social Organization of Military Activity in a Philippine Moslem Society - Page 163 by Thomas M. Kiefer - 1969
• Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic - Page 233 by Pierre Lemonnier - Social Science - 1993
• The American Indian: An Introduction to the Anthropology of the New World - Page 240 by Clark Wissler - 1922 - 474 pages
• The Ancient Cliff Dwellers of Mesa Verde - Page 46 by Caroline Arnold - Juvenile Nonfiction - 2000 - 64 pages
• The Archaeological Review - Page 230 by Gomme, George Laurence, Sir, 1853-1916, George Laurence Gomme - 1889
• The Archaeology of Rock-Art - Page 95 by Christopher Chippindale - Social Science - 1998 - 392 pages
• The Artifacts of Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and Unworked Material - Page 105 by Hattula Moholy-Nagy - History - 2003
• The Australian Race: Its Origin, Languages, Customs, Place of Landing in Australia and the ... - Page 158 by Edward Micklethwaite Curr - 1886
• The Contemporary Scene: Readings on Human Nature, Race, Behavior, Society, and Environment - Page 45 by Paul B. Weisz - 1970 - 349 pages
• The Desert and the Dream: A Study of Welsh Colonization in Chubut, 1865-1915 - Page 114 by Glyn Williams - 1975 - 243 pages
• The Ecological Citizen: Good Earthkeeping in America - Page 295 by Dirck Van Sickle - 1971 - 295 pages
• The Evolution of Culture: An Interdisciplinary View - Page 159 by Camilla Power, R. I. M. (Robin Ian MacDonald). Dunbar, Chris Knight - Social Science - 1999 - 257 pages
• The Fish People: Linguistic Exogamy and Tukanoan Identity in Northwest Amazonia - Page 46 by Jean Elizabeth Jackson - Social Science - 1983 - 302 pages
• The Great Ice Age: Climate Change and Life - Page 203 by Jenny L. Chapman, Richard Christopher Lane Wilson, Stephen A. Drury - Science - 2000 - 267 pages
• The History of Mankind - Page 82 by Friedrich Ratzel - 1898
• The Hominid Individual In Context: Archaeological Investigations Of Lower And Middle ... - Page 128 by Clive Gamble, Martin Porr - Social Science - 2005 - 326 pages
• The Iron Age in India - Page 203 by N. R. Banerjee - 1965 - 264 pages
• The Kingfisher Book of the Ancient World: From the Ice Age to the Fall of Rome - Page 126 by Hazel Mary Martell - History - 2001 - 160 pages
• The Listening Ebony: moral knowledge, religion, and power among the Uduk of Sudan - Page 334 by Wendy James - Religion - 1988
• The Naked Man - Page 326 by Claude Lévi-Strauss - Social Science - 1990
• The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropaedia : Ready Reference and Index - Page 1082 by Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica(ed.), Encyclopaedia Britannica Staff - Reference - 1974
• The Nganasan: The Material Culture of the Tavgi Samoyeds - Page 22 by Andrei Aleksandrovich Popov - Social Science - 1966
• The Origins of Invention: A Study of Industry Among Primitive Peoples - Page 377 by Otis Tufton Mason - Business & Economics - 1895
• The Politics of Cultural Difference in Northern Cameroon - Page 71 by Philip C. Burnham - 1996 - 220 pages
• The Prehistory of Egypt - Page 92 by B^aeatrix Midant-Reynes - Social Science - 2000 - 328 pages
• The Primitive Races of Mankind: A Study in Ethnology - Page 118 by Max Schmidt - 1926 - 360 pages
• The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh's Workforce by Ann Rosalie David - Reference - 1996
• The Red Chief - Page 128 by Ion Llewellyn Idriess - Biography & Autobiography - 1981 - 226 pages
• The Sea Gypsies of Malaysia - Page 263 by Walter Grainge White - History - 1982 - 318 pages
• The Secret of Culture: Nine Community Studies - Page 230 by Laura Thompson - 1969 - 394 pages
• The Shared Journey: An Introduction to Encounter - Page 191 by Terry O'Banion, April O'Connell - Psychology - 1970 - 203 pages
• The Soviet Far East in Antiquity: An Archaeological and Historical Study of the Maritime Region ... - Page 34 by Alekseæ? Pavlovich Okladnikov, Arctic Institute of North America - Social Science - 1965
• The Story of Early Man: Human Evolution to the End of the Stone Age - Page 160 by H. E. L. Mellersh - Social Science - 1960
• The Tlingit Indians - Page 129 by George Thornton Emmons - Social Science - 1991 - 530 pages
• The Tribal People of India by India Ministry of Information and Broadcasting - 1973 - 384 pages
• The Ways of Men: An Introduction to Anthropology - Page 537 by John Philip Gillin - 1948 - 649 pages
• The Wildbooters - Page 72 by Fritz Kern - 1960 - 204 pages
• Tribal Culture and Tribal Welfare - Page 39 by A. Aiyappan, Uma Charan Mohanty, University of Madras Dept. of Anthropology - 1988 - 195 pages
• Triumph of the Nomads: A History of Aboriginal Australia - Page 127 by Blainey, Geoffrey - History - 1976 - 285 pages
• True Love and Bartholomew: Rebels on the Burmese Border - Page 122 by Jonathan Falla - History - 1991 - 424 pages
• University of Oregon Monographs - Page 105 by University of Oregon - 1926
• Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology - Page 98 by Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Viking Fund, Inc - 1943
• Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, Rene Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and ... - Page 165 by Walter Burkert, Rene Girard, Jonathan Smith - Religion - 1987 - 292 pages
• War and the Chase: A Handbook to the Collection of Weapons of Savage, Barbaric, and Civilised ... - Page 42 by Horniman Museum - 1929 - 85 pages
• War of the Warramullas - Page 120 by Michael Terry - History - 1975 - 10 pages
• Where Cultures Meet: Frontiers in Latin American History by David J. Weber, Jane M. Rausch - History - 1994 - 233 pages
• Wildlife in Asia: Cultural Perspectives by John Knight - Social Science - 2004 - 258 pages
• Working Your Way to the Bottom: The Feminization of Poverty - Page 89 by Hilda ( Scott - Social Science - 1984
• Yale University Publications in Anthropology - Page 30 by Yale University Institute of Human Relations, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University Dept. of Social and Political Science. Section of Anthropology - 1936

Removing the restriction of "anthropology", I get 627 hits; I chose the field of anthropology here because it seemed to be the one that gave the highest percentage of highly reputable, peer reviewed publications; many published by universities, research foundations, and professional societies. It also gave me a reasonable, >100 number of hits to collate and format. So are they all mis-using the English language? Or is the OED wrong? Or, rather, is your interpretation of the OED wrong--since the OED doesn't in fact explicitly forbid the phrase "hunting weapon"? scot 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly looks like hundreds of reputable sources is no exaggeration. Trying to find combinations of words in a dictionary is not the best way to validate the validity of a compound expression such as "hunting weapon". The best way is to validate the usage of the compound expression in reputable sources (which now have been documented) in which the expression is used. Looks like this mediation is nearing an end to me. Yaf 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How many of these Google search hits have you read? Obviously very very few, if any.

I just did a quick spot checking Fluzwup's research, and find that the first citation on his list by William Lloyd Warner is writing of ceremonial weapons, not at all about 'hunting'. This casts a doubt on the quality of your research making it appear skewed and a POV push. SaltyBoatr 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just becuae it is primarily about one thing doesn't mean it can't cover another as well. Most likely it talks about hunting weapons and derivative ceremonial weapons.--LWF 22:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true, it could be like you say. My point is that you are researching the usage of the term 'hunting weapon' in this way. There is a chance that your research into English usage may not carry the same weight of authority as the research done by the Oxford English Dictionary. Both you and they have done research about English usage. How shall we decide which to authority to use to answer this question being mediated? SaltyBoatr 17:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I would consult as many sources as possible, as there is no authoritative source on the English language. The French may have an absolutely authoritative source for French, but English speakers simply don't have one. Which is why English changes the way it does.--LWF 00:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I consulted the OED regarding English usage. Your study of the usage found in your Google search results is original research as to usage. SaltyBoatr 17:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So is it original research to consult dictionaries. They all document usage, and seeing as how most people don't rely exclusively on the OED and will consult other sources, we should probably not rely on a single source.--LWF 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, consulting dictionaries as to word usage is not original research. Doing Google searches to find examples of word usages is original research. The difference being that the editors of dictionaries do the research and report their findings in their dictionary. Where Fluzwup with his '136 referneces' Google books search above was doing the research originally, and reporting his findings to us. SaltyBoatr 04:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 24th you indicated that you had not read the OED, I still encourage you to do so. You will find that not all dictionaries are equal in documenting word usage. The OED is vastly more comprehensive in this regard than any of the other dictionaries mentioned so far in this discussion. The other dictionaries mentioned at most make a vague mention at to the sourcing of the usage, and instead give a short definition only. The OED has the explicit policy to document and give examples of all English usages. Please read the OED entry on 'weapon' to see what I mean. I am not insisting on a single source, and I have consulted multiple dictionaries. I just see that the OED is vastly more comprehensive and authoritative than the other more concise and simple dictionaries so far mentioned. SaltyBoatr 04:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the difficulty, while I acknowledge that the OED is a high quality dictionary, I've noticed that it is quite large. This may seem good, but it can become quite prohibitive when it comes time to update it. Does the OED say in its entries how long it's been since that entry was updated? Oh also, I will be away for a week starting this evening. I am not sure if I will have access to a computer during that time, but I doubt that I will.--LWF 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the OED, since its debut online in March 2000 is constantly being reviewed and updates are issued quarterly. The most recent update (the 23rd since March, 2000) was issued on June 14th 2007. Can you tell us the review policy, the last update date, and the update frequency of the dictionary you favor? SaltyBoatr 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the revision date of the whole dictionary, I am asking about the entry for weapon. By the way, the most recent revision of the Oxford Dictionary of Current English was 2006.--LWF 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The first set of revisions was "M to mahurat" added in 2000, with updates going in alphabetical order, wrapping around at Z. The latest listed up date was June 2007, with "prima to proteose". The online retreivals I've seen just list "Second Edition, 1989". The most recent citation under that is 1980, and there is a 2005 draft addition of the phrase "weapon of mass destruction". Additions are not added by volume, but rather whenever the entries are drafted and/or finalized (note however that the first use cited in the 2005 draft addition dates back to 1937). scot 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And regardless, the question is not whether 'hunting weapon' is a term in the English language, we all agree that at times it is used. But the real question is whether the term crosses the threshold to be considered mainstream English? Please quit wasting our time by dodging this key issue. Do we use Fluzwup's Google research[3]? Or, do we rely upon expert authority like the OED? SaltyBoatr 20:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A critical analysis of the OED definition 1. a. of "weapon"

From the OED second edition (1989) definition of weapon:

1. a. An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy.

Complete citations for definition 1. a.:

Beowulf 1509 Swa he ne mihte no..wæpna {asg}ewealdan. Ibid. 1573 He..wæpen hafenade heard be hiltum. c930 O.E. Chron. an. 917, & a-hreddon eall {th}æt hie {asg}e-numen hæfdon, & eac hira horsa & hira wæpna micelne dæl. c1205 LAY. 6424 Morpidus..seouen hundred of-sloh and swemde mi{edh} wepnen. a1225 Ancr. R. 240 {Th}e {th}et his wepnen worpe{edh} awei, him luste beon iwunded. c1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. Wace (Rolls) 15518 When {th}ey were waxen on elde, Armes to bere, & wepne to welde. 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. III. 304 Alle {th}at bereth baslarde, brode swerde or launce, Axe other hachet or eny wepne ellis. c1386 CHAUCER Monk's T. 34 With-outen wepene saue his handes tweyne He slow and al torente the leon. 1415 HOCCLEVE To Sir J. Oldcastle 471 A clod Of eerthe, at your heedes to slynge or caste, Were wepne ynow. c1511 1st Eng. Bk. Amer. (Arb.) Introd. 28/1 There wepyns is lange pykes and stones ther they caste myghtly with. 1559 Mirr. Mag., Dk. Suffolk xxi, And sum with weapons would have layed on lode. 1610 SHAKES. Temp. II. i. 322 'Tis best we stand vpon our guard..: let's draw our weapons. 1614 RALEGH Hist. World V. iii. §21. 579 The Battels of foote..drew neere together..till they were almost within a weapons cast. 1636 MASSINGER Bashf. Lover I. ii, In a cause like this, The Husbandman would change his ploughing-irons To weapons of defence. 1697 DRYDEN Æneis v. 668 Fix'd in the Mast the feather'd Weapon stands. 1750 GRAY Long Story 39 They hid their armour And veil'd their weapons bright and keen. 1821 BYRON Sardan. II. i, My sword! O fool, I wear no sword: here, fellow, Give me thy weapon. 1859 DICKENS T. Two Cities I. v, Nothing was represented in a flourishing condition, save tools and weapons. 1870 EMERSON Soc. & Solit., Eloquence (end), The Arabian warrior of fame, who wore seventeen weapons in his belt. 1880 Encycl. Brit. XI. 278 The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter. 1902 A. S. HURD How Navy is run 81 There is a roar and a crash as the great 25-ton weapon speaks.

• Beowulf, section XXII lines 1506-1509 in Old English, and a modern translation, from http://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html

Bær þá séo brimwylf þá héo tó botme cóm

hringa þengel tó hofe sínum

swá hé ne mihte --nó hé þæs módig wæs--

waépna gewealdan ac hine wundra þæs fela

Then the sea-wolf bore, when she had come to the bottom,

the lord of those rings to her court,

so he could not --no matter how brave he was--

wield his weapon, but him so many bizarre things

This section describes Beowulf's individual combat with Grendel's mother, the sea-wolf. While this would be described as combat, individual combat does not fit the definition of warfare, which involves conflict between groups. Additionally, the Old English version once uses an explicit word for weapons used in battle; from line 39:

hildewaépnum ond heaðowaédum

with weapons of battle and war-dress,

While nothing definitive about hunting weapon can be garnered from Beowulf, it does cast doubt upon restricting weapon to the sense of an item used in warfare.

Beowulf uses 'weapon' in exclusively context of combat. I maintain that per the OED, that global English 'weapon' implies combat or warfare, not 'hunting' because hunting (being primarily the search and pursuit) has nothing to do with combat or warfare. SaltyBoatr 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Chaucer's A monk's tale. In Middle English, and a modern translation, from http://www.librarius.com/canttran/monktrfs.htm

Sampsoun, this noble almyghty champioun,

Withouten wepene, save his handes tweye,

He slow and al torente the leoun

Toward his weddyng walkynge by the weye.

Samson, this noble mighty champion,

Without a weapon in his hands, I say,

He slew and rent in two a young lion,

While to his wedding walking in the way.

Here we see weapon used in a non-warfare context, perhaps in the context of hunting; in a demonstration of his strength, Sampson kills a lion, using his hands as the weapons.

Obviously, fighting a lion is a form of 'combat', defense against the threat of a predator; with 'weapon' being the correct term. SaltyBoatr 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sampson wasn't attacked by the lion, it's pretty clear he attacked the lion. And combat carries a strong connotation of military conflict; otherwise the term "fight" would be more appropriate. scot 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• MASSINGER Bashful Lover I. ii

In a cause like this, The Husbandman would change his ploughing-irons To weapons of defence.

Here we see a contradiction with the OED definition; how can you have a weapon of defence when a weapon is by definition used to attack and overcome?

Easy, combat and warfare can be both defensive or offensive. There is not contradiction seen here. SaltyBoatr 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy. Not only is no mention made of defense, it is fact specifically excluded in the definition. scot 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not excluded. One could be said to overcome an attacker, acting from a defensive position. SaltyBoatr 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1880 Encyclopedia Britannica XI. 278

The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter.

We've hit on this one before; it explicity mentions sporting arms, and I have provided additional mentions of uses of the phrase hunting weapon from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Based on the analysis of the OED's sources, I think it is clear that the OED definition is incomplete and therefore misleading. That the more recent 2005 COED lists as the primary definition of weapon, a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage seems to be an indication that Oxford University Press has altered their definition of weapon to reflect the long history of non-warfare related uses. The fact that the term is clearly in common use should be indicated by the definition given by the 2006 Princeton WordNet lexicography (http://wordnet.priceton.edu), 1. any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon". As has been pointed out, a lexicography is a database of words and their relationships; that the Princeton lexicography defines weapon in terms of hunting is a clear indication that the phrase hunting weapon is in common use in the English speaking world, and is therefore a part of the ill-defined standard English currently under debate. scot 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Fluzwup, you write falsely: "'...it explicity mentions sporting arms". By the way, I would accept Hunting arms or Sporting arms as a compromise title to this article. Rather the OED mentions 'sporting and military weapons', which is yet again (among several dozen other), of the usages where 'weapon' is used in context of combat and warfare. Your convoluted reading of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica defies logic. And, you need to demonstrate that you are not reading too much to push your POV from the ambiguity found in the abbreviated definition of the COED. Specifically, I see that the COED seems to be written as a melding of the transfered, figurative and literal usages found in the more comprehensive OED. For our purposes, we should stick with the literal definitions only, and avoid the transfered and figurative usages. Using the COED brings the risk that we would mix these up. I appreciate and respect that by your personal point of view, that the OED "incomplete and therefore misleading". Yet, the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion, and you have not done so yet. The Wordnet lexicographical database is interesting, but a lexicographical database proves nothing about whether the term 'hunting weapon' is to be yet considered to be global or worldwide English. Google is another sort of lexicographical database. A lexicographical database answers the wrong question, which is whether 'hunting weapon' has meaning among a subset of speakers of English. That it does is not in dispute; nor is it the question at hand. The question we face is whether 'hunting weapon' is a global or worldwide English term. To answer that question I see no greater authority than the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary. SaltyBoatr 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter. So "small arms" includes sporting what? Last time I checked, the phrase "sporting and military weapons" was equivalent to "sporting weapons and military weapons".

Please provide the OED definition of "arms". scot 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could focus on the question at hand. Also, can we try to communicate by responding to each other's questions and requests? Failing to do this, we are just shadowboxing. I take back my suggestion about 'hunting arms' being a suitable title because looking at the OED I see that 'arms', too, invariable occurs in context of warfare. Could you please address my points in the paragraph above, and not ignore them? SaltyBoatr 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would answer any questions if you posed them, but rather you made statements. And, just to make this simple, I'm going to reject the OED definition as being self contradictory, as it defines weapon using "to attack" and then references "weapons of defence" in its justification. Please provide a source that you will accept that does not contain inherent contradictions. scot 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making this so simple. We have a very stark choice then, to accept the authority of Fluzwup, versus the editors of the OED. How shall we make this decision? SaltyBoatr 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop dodging the issue. The OED definition of "weapon" is inherently self-contradictory, so find another source that isn't. That should be a trivial task, since you claim that is the mainstream English use of the word. scot 13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, acting in a combative role defensively against an attack makes perfect sense. Regardless there is no requirement that dictionaries should do anything other than document English. Plenty of words have various meanings, even opposite meanings, and sometimes contradictory meanings. The OED has meticulously documented the various meanings of the word 'weapon'. SaltyBoatr 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you evaded my question again. Shall we rely upon the authority of the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, or upon the personal research of certain Wikipdedia editors?

Nowhere does the OED say "the word weapon is not valid in the case of hunting". You are making an interpretation that "used in warefare or in combat" exludes the use "hunting weapon", just like I am making the interpretation that "used...to attack and overcome" excludes the use "weapons of defence". I say we rely in sources that actually apply directly to the use in question. I can document the description of spears, bows, atlatls, rifles, muzzleloaders, boomerangs, and many other items as "hunting weapons"; those require NO interpretation. I say we rely on sources that directly address the issue, and are not subject to potentially biased interpretations--your bias OR mine. scot 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint that "Nowhere does the OED say..." relies on the 'argument from silence' form of logical fallacy and is therefore irrelevant. Your complaint could also be used to argue that every word means everything imaginable. SaltyBoatr 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that the OED definition of "weapon" does not apply to hunting is exactly the same case as my argument that the OED definition of "weapon" does not apply to defense. Is your argument therefore equally fallacious? scot 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic here. I am just literally reading the OED, and other dictionaries. Please try to first read the sources before your reach your conclusion. It appears instead that you have already made up your mind, and then are trying to find sources that agree. SaltyBoatr 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that we should rely on the fact that "I can document..." is asking us to rely on your original research of English usage. You keep coming back to this 'argument' over and over again, please stop. I agree with you that you can document that some people use 'hunting weapon' in their language, move on, wrong question. The question is not whether some people use the term. The actual question is whether 'hunting weapon' as a term has reached the threshold to be considered global or worldwide English. And, clearly, we need to look to authority to answer this question. I see no better authority on documentation of global English usage than the Oxford English Dictionary. SaltyBoatr 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But what about the case where the OED contradicts with other dictionaries? How many other dictionaries do I need to find with contradictory definitions before you will admit that the OED definition might be wrong? Or are you going to claim that it cannot have an error or omission? That every other dictionary must be wrong? Even the ones published by Oxford University Press? It seems to me that the "threadhold to be considered global or worldwide use" would be to pick the definition found in the largest number of dictionaries, not to pick the one that you like best. And once again, there is no authoritative English dictionary, they are all descriptive. And even if the OED were authoritative, wouldn't that make it a primary source? scot 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As I tried to explain before, and will repeat again: You have not shown that the OED contradicts with the other dictionaries, but rather your complaint is that it contradicts with your personal belief. The OED describes the various usages of 'weapon' at length, including the transferred, vulgar and figurative usages. The shorter simpler concise dictionaries you have mentioned meld these literal, transferred and figurative usages together. If you read all these dictionaries together you can see this distinction. We should use the literal usage definition, not the transferred or figurative usages. SaltyBoatr 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing tack

OK, let's try this from the other direction. What do guns, bows, spears, atlatl darts, and the like all have in common?

• bow n 2 a weapon for shooting arrows, made of curved wood joined at both ends by a taut string.
• spear noun 1 a weapon with a pointed metal tip and a long shaft, used for thrusting or throwing.
• gun noun 1 a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets or shells are propelled by explosive force.
• dart noun 1 a small pointed missile thrown or fired as a weapon.

Again, from the COED. Are those literal, figurative, or transferred uses of "weapon"? And if they're suitable for use in a dictionary, published by the Oxford University Press, and popular enough that Oxford uses it as their default online dictionary, why isn't it suitable for use in Wikipedia? scot 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those four examples can be used combatively, and as such would be 'weapons' per global English. Yet when used for hunting, that would be the transferred usage of the word. Like for instance, Tristan, The land of Moab: pg 95 [4] "...such weapons of the flesh as a knife and fork..", a transfered usage. SaltyBoatr 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So why not use it when describing items that are defined as weapons that may be used in hunting? It's used in in exactly the same "transferred" usage in laws worldwide ("deadly weapon", "concealed weapon", and even "hunting weapon), encyclopedias (the 1911 Britannica use of "hunting weapon", this Encarta article), technical jargon ("less lethal weapon", "electroshock weapon"), and the sciences (the anthropology books listed above). No other word carries the same connotations, the same subtle shades of meaning; "tool" or "implement" are a vast superset, and "arms" is a just a synonym of "weapon". I agree that it's not up to use to determine at what point a word passes a threshold; but what I do wish you to take note of is the fact that there is a significant body of anthropological literature, source material for this article (or it will soon be, I'm compiling a references for a detailed history right now), that does use the term "hunting weapon" when it refers to spears, atlatls, bows, and rifles, and it is the usage in that field that justifies the usage in an article about that field. Searching anthropology sources, the term "hunting tool" and "hunting implement" together produce a fraction of the hits that "hunting weapon" does, and they are not as narrowly focused, such as | "hunting tool kit" which includes bow, arrows, knives, string, matches, machetes, and decoy hats. And don't claim this is "original research", because it's not, it's just plain research. I'm researching the history of hunting, and over and over again I see the term "hunting weapon" used to describe everything from spears to rifles. Why shouldn't I use the same term that my sources do? scot 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is a separate question. I repeat, I agree that your 'plain research' finds usage of the term 'hunting weapon' by some English speaking people. The question at hand is: Is this global English? And our choice: Shall we rely on the authority of the 'plain research' of a Wikipedia editor, or shall we rely on the authority of the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to answer this question? I see that the OED is the greater authority. SaltyBoatr 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No we shouldn't rely only on the OED. We should rely on as many sources as possible, such as the ones we have mentioned so many times. For starters: every other Oxford University Press Dictionary, Websters, Random House, and a few others,--LWF 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to insert a tangent here, and I'm not sure if this is the propoer place, but I think there would be an issue with inventing the phrase "sporting weapon" to describe hunting weapons. The description "sporting weapon" is already used to describe a larger class of weapons than merely hunting weapons, includes fencing foils and epees. While hunting may be a sport, it is not the only sport that uses weapons. Also of note, "sporting weapon" has a definition under UK law [5]