Talk:Ducks Unlimited

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ducks Unlimited article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Ducks Unlimited is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Birds C‑class Low‑importance

Ducks Unlimited is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

C

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment C‑class Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mexico

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Advert Tag[edit]

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

POV Tag[edit]

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

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

I can agree with that, I will replace your POV tag. Movementarian 19:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand how one edits these tags but I was interested in DU as I wanted to know if anyone had described the definition of wildfowling, the harvesting of a sustainable surplus of "wild" ducks and geese (waterfowling in US). As no-one had put up such a definition I had a look at the DU page as it came up as a relevent hit. Allthough DU is based in the US and Canada, it is know internationally as primarily a shooting and conservation organisation, which has been the most sucessful wildfowl and wetland conservation group ever, primarily because of vested interests of their members for hunting. I believe that the article states that the DU was started to conserve, protect and promote habitats for wildfowl by "concerned businessmen" for the good of HUNTING. Therefore the article does not hide the true objectives of its mebership and should not be criticised as such. Best wishes Tom Cameron, Leeds, UK

Although you are right to point out that the article mentions 'hunting,' the inclusion of such seems akin to a 'fine print.' It should have more prominent position and weight within the article to present the organization in a balanced 'neutral' light. Just because something is 'mentioned' does not necessarily mean the article is balanced; as you put it, the 'true objectives of its membership' should be spelled out as such. A concerned passer-by. 7 March 2006

I wholly agree, this article is definitely not written in a neutral fashion. Ducks Unlimited is an organization that sees wetlands as a place to hunt, and conserves them so they can hunt there. They are not a pro-wildlife organization, they are a pragmatic hunting organization. The fact that 95% of the article says nothing about hunting is not an even handed or honest assessment of DU. --hack 00:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the POV tag after adding a few sentences on the controversy surrounding DU and the influence hunting has on the organisation. I believe that hunting is now mentioned sufficiently enough to warrent removal of the POV tag. I also removed or reworded some of the DUC facts which seemed to contain non-neutral wording and am trying to find the proper citations for the DUC facts. Pat 19 July 2006

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

Restored POV tag[edit]

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

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

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

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

weasel words[edit]

The "Controversies" section contains a phrase that needs to be rewritten due to weasel words and handwaving: "DU also continues to complete many more successful conservation projects than do many of its detractors." Anyone want to give this a shot? Bricology (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After 2 years I guess not.172.56.2.230 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

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