Talk:Hare coursing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHare coursing is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
June 29, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

/2006 Rewrite

Rewrite[edit]

The "procedure" only refers to "open coursing".Legal coursing does not award points for turns etc. the winner is the first one to turn the hare or if no hare is turned then it is decided on the first dog to reach the top of the field.Please get this part of the article right.Maybe use the definition of coursing in Ireland which is on the original article.It is more up to date and if worded properly shall make the article.HECTOR 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The area isn't usually enclosed, the object isn't always to catch the hare, the dogs aren't usually lurchers.

Nonsense. The blokes that mostly go out at night use lurchers and also do a bit of buglary while they are out. The majority of dog men actually do hunt, there just not the kind of people hunters want to admit make up the majority of there cadre.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very invalid claim.Do you even know what you are on about?It is illegal coursing you are refering to?That is only a minority.If so then they are not real doggie men at all.Ian Davies Friend 16:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)ian davies friend[reply]

I admit to not being an expert, but i think most people in the UK, if you said "Hare Coursing" or "Coursing" to them would either have no idea what you were talking about, or think of organised Coursing of the Waterloo Cup type. The article as it stands suggests that unofficial coursing is the more common and popular, and that most of those who engage in it are of criminal character. I don't know if either is true, but i do think the distinction between this and organised coursing, a perfectly reputable sport with a long history, should be made clearer. IanB

I notice that about 95% of this article deals with the legality and ethics of hare coursing. There is very little information about the sport itself. It would be nice to see more details on what exactly modern hare coursing entails. KevinPeuhkurinen 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. WHy not add it? MikeHobday 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hare coursing is a sport[edit]

Most peopke to be honest if you ask them what's "coursing" or "hare coursing' wont have a clue what it is.Its a unique and exciting sport that goes back generations and generations(one of the worlds oldest sports) .However the article on this site is wrong as in coursing the dog(always a GREYHOUND never a lurcher,lurchers are only used for hunting by some people(i.e.Travellers/Itenerants or as they are known in the UK "Gypsies") wears a mussle and the aim is to turn the hare on a field approximately 200 yards, the hare then goes in to the escape(a field surrounded by high fences) where to be honest it (they) are free from harm as no dog or fox can get in and no hunter with a gun can shoot them,in the escape the hare is fed with apples,sally trees,oats and given water every day.So to be honest they are well kept and the people involved in this sport do not set out to kill the hares.After the coursing the hares are let off into the wild and won't be disturbed until the following year. Open coursing(very rare these days) is different where the dogs don't wear mussles and there isn't a set field(i.e. the hunt goes on until the hare escapes,this is probally what sets people off. The protesters should mind their own business and get their facts right (most dont even know what coursing is let alone know what a Greyhound looks like!!).As for the rubbish about "hunters burgaling at night time" you are only telling lies as the people involved in this sport are the ones that break their backs for their communities,are involved local sports,go to mass on saturdays/sundays etc.,some have land and go to the pubs(i.e just plain and simple normal people.), we dont use lurchers thats probally some race that i have already stated in line 5, some of them people also try to rob the hares that coursing clubs have caught, some of them kill the hares so why dont you all bother them instead of the innocent people.Some people shoot the hares but not us.WE DONT INTENTIONALLY TRY TO KILL THEM, very rarely do they die(DEFINITELY NOT ON PURPOSE),they are well fed and looked after.So if you want to ban a blood sport ban Boxing or something thats actually a blood sport(although you wouldnt have a chance).Theres more violence on tv nowadays than in real life and what about the out of control celebs??Or the Scum Drug dealers and terrorists than are ruining our society?They are the ones who are doing something "ILLEGAL" Annoy them cant ye?Coursing is an offical sport like it or not its perfectly legal.

The problem with this country is bigoted scum like yourself. If you want a more constructive debate I suggest you stop hidding behind an IP address. The article has a reference to a pro hunt person who disagrees with you in virtually every detail.--84.9.211.79 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im not scum im just giving everyone an insight into coursing from a coursing persons point of view.Im not bigoted either.Some of the stuff wrote on this page is absolute nonsense like 'burgaling' something that real coursing people dont do.I think i know what coursing is,you wouldnt really know because your just a moaner.Your the one thats hiding behind an IP address.Bye, cant be listening to the likes of you(KNOW IT ALLS) and all the rubbish ye come up with. Davy

Like the Name Davy is an ID. This article is about coursing as it happens not just the people you consider real coursers.--84.9.192.10 19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ya it is an identification like!Valid point however i must say to you that we dont intend to hurt the animals, they are well kept and the coursing is overseen by a wildlife ranger.Coursing is legal but lamping and coursing without mussles and with lurchers is illegal.Im only in to the legal coursing.However i wouldnt really be in to "real" blood sports like shooting and fox hunting(unless of course they are breeding them themselves ie.gamekeepers) because they are setting out to kill the animal.However the only thing that annoys me about coursing is the swapping and selling of hares,there is probally someone who does that in every single club.When the hares are given back they prob have viruses thus when they are released into the wild again other hares will get the virus thus leading to the hare stock decreasing.I would be all against stopping the swapping and selling bit because it destroys the sport and could lead to the extinction of the hare.

Then you should add your stuff under a sub topic like Mussled Coursing, the variety of modern coursing needs to be covered good and bad, legal and not. The nearest pub was the local doggers pub, being conviently situated on the edge of the coutryside. I'd watch them slope of into the night. My own point of view is. If you eat what you kill and your method is not unduly cruel, then it's fine. I disagree with a lot of fisher men and fox hunters on the not eating point. I foxes are such a pest then a more efficent method than the hunt is needed.--84.9.210.127 20:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with dave.Ya well thats probally in england but i dont believe they would steal,was it not lurchers they were using,Lurchers have nothing 2 do with coursing,in coursing Greyhounds are used.Although gypsies use lurchers and kill the hares.Isnt shooting cruel???????Dont they kill the fox's?in coursing if its run properly no hares will be hurt.The avergae out of just say every 100 less than 5 would get injured,the slipper wont lip a pregnant,baby or injured/bad hare.Dont mind all that shite i.e ban blood sports bcos they dont actually tell people how its actually run and ever notice they only show when a hare is being killed not the good points about coursing??Sectarianists if u ask me.As for user 84.9.210.127 i would like to tell u that we dont kill the hares so that doesnt fall into your point of view as we dont KILL the hares or set out to harm them and the only dogs used in coursing are GREYHOUNDS not lurchers like many bigoted people think like User:84.9.211.79.

Here is an article about real scum

6,000 coursing fans disappointed as unidentified saboteurs steal hares

by Conor Keane IRELAND’S third largest greyhound coursing meeting was abandoned after saboteurs stole up to 30 hares. Crowds of up to 6,000 people normally attend the annual Corn na Féile coursing meeting in Abbeyfeale, generating a spend of almost £500,000 in the locality. Irish Coursing Club president Jack O’Rourke, secretary of the Abbeyfeale club, ruled out suggestions that the event was hit by the militant Animal Liberation Front. “This was a local job and required intimate local knowledge to rob the hares over a number of days. We have our suspicions but we are sure none of the animals rights organisations were involved,” said Mr O’Rourke. He said he and the 60 other members of the local coursing club were upset that the meeting could not go ahead. “We get visitors from all over Ireland for Corn na Féile and this will be a big setback to many local business, especially hotels, B&Bs and the 30 pubs in the town. We are gutted that this happened. It’s a major part of the year in this part of the country and part of the social fabric of the area,” he said. The main £12,000 Corn Na Féile competition, one of the largest purses in Irish coursing, has been abandoned for this year but a number of minor stakes have been transferred to Galbally in East Limerick today. “A lot of the dogs scheduled to run here will get a run in Newcastle West next weekend, but we are determined to be back, better than ever, next year,” promised the Abbeyfeale publican. In October, the militant Animal Liberation Front (ALF) promised to strike Irish coursing meetings following an attempt to sabotage an event in Co. Offaly. Then, over 30 hares were released from an enclosed compound where they were being housed by the Edenderry Coursing Club. The ALF, based in Britain, claimed responsibility for the attack through their spokesman Robin Webb. Mr Webb yesterday could not say if ALF supporters in Ireland were behind the Abbeyfeale sabotage. He said that it would not surprise him if they were. Irish Hunt Saboteurs Association spokeswoman Bernie Wright welcomed the action in Abbeyfeale, regardless of who carried it out. “Cancelling the coursing meeting means that hares have been saved and I can only welcome that,” she said.


The ALF were reportably going to bomb some peoples homes aswell.Now who are the scumbags? As for d last lad who wrote in Coursing is WITH GREYHOUNDS.Whippets and lurcher,wolfhounds used for drag racing(artifical hare similar to greyhound racing)and for hunting which with dogs running after the hare over no marked distance and with no mussles on could and probally kills the hare.so get your facts right.THE DEFINITION OF COURSING on this site is obvioulsy wrote by someone who is anti and who does'nt have a clue.

Too bad they didn't succeed...it's a sickening bloodsport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.69.214 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move comment[edit]

[Why is this 'bastardized', it is under rules, National Coursing Club rules, only greyhounds participate, not lurchers. Dont see how this is relevant.]

  • If the orignal purpose was meat for the pot, then by removing that as the purpose, it becomes illegitmate, hence bastardised?--IanDavies 16:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



You see it the person who wrote up on it had it all wrong,he hadnt a clue.He was a plonker.But the in the last two days the 20th and the 21st two lads on seperate occasions have put it right.Well done on the information,it is really up to date and true.Previously it made me angry and sad to see legal historic and proud greyhound courisng being linked with lurcher coursing.Get the facts right before ye protest.

You wrote the last batch . Perhaps things are different in Limerick.--IanDavies 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously just a know it all.You obviously know nothing about coursing these days.

I know history and I'm not dumb enough to beleive that just because me old da told me something it must be true. You clearly don't understand the history of hunting with dogs or what the word "coursing" means huting with dogs. Not you belief that it is only greyhound. You ignorance is sickening as is you arrogance. You don't even have the courage to identify yourself. --IanDavies 12:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian i know what im on about right i have greyhounds for coursing and track,im also a member of a coursing club.In fairness i take back what i said that caused your last response but there is only one sport called coursing.I also didnt write alot of the stuff on this page.But may i say it again,the definition of coursing is hunting with sight hounds or whatever you want to call it,but saying we are robbers,crooks and criminals is wrong.I think that maybe you should put your topic under a heading of "Hunting with dogs" and "Hare Coursing" the proper description.Look up sports in England and Ireland and you will see "Coursing".Hare coursing is using greyhounds while using lurchers is illegal and should be stopped as the hare is nearly always killed.The people who do lurcher hunting have no regard and are in Ireland generally a race of people called "Travellers",i dont hate these people but they are rapidly killing the hares with their illegal hunting.I dont think you fully know what hare coursing(legal) is as you clearly arent involved in it.Thats irritating whereby people not involved in the sport make false comments and think they know it all.As for the shite "me oul da told me' i think id know than you easily about the sport. I hope we have cleared up any issues between us and that you change your false description of one of the worlds oldest sports. Dave aka Ian Davies Friend!

At the moment there is not enough information to justify spliting the article, so it will have to cope with both historic and current practice. The travelers you refer to and the dog men, I'm more familar with, see themselves as Hare courser. The article has to be more like the Football article.--IanDavies 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ian their not(the travellers) and they dont do it legally.Id be more familliar since im a doggy man.They also rob the hares and sell them. The dogs dont wear mussles,theres no set field,they trespass(we ask for permission and know the land owners)they have no regard for the safety of the hare,some shoot it and the aim is to kill it.Real Coursers?My arse.If they were real coursers then their dogs would have markings and would be registered with a greyhound board.Ya split it in two,but put your heading under coursing then have 2 different links,one to hare courisng and another to the illegal hunting side of it.Dave

I agree with IanDavies - the various aspects of hare coursing can and in my opinion should be contained within a single article. Like it or not, the activity as practiced outside of official NCC rules is still hare coursing. The proper approach, I would suggest, would be to include it in the article, but point out the fact that it is an unofficial form of the same general activity. We can't just omit it because some of us don't like it or wish to distance ourselves from it in order to support the official form. That would be against the purpose of Wikipedia in general, as well as its NPOV policy specifically. --Hux 12:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified claim?[edit]

I tried to clean up the grammar in the article and get it closer to a NPOV. One question though: the article says, "On average, 9 out of every 10 hares coursed escapes unharmed." Can anyone back this up with a citation? Without substantiation this claim could easily be read as an politicised attempt to limit the assertion that it is a "bloodsport."

Ya well done on cleaning it up,look coursing up in google and you get many useful articles on todays coursing.Ya 9/10 hares escape unharmed but from my experiences if you caught 80 only 3 might die and they often die by colliding with other hares in the escape.So even 9/10 is wrong its more so 9.9/10.DaveIan Davies Friend 14:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)ian davies friend[reply]

There is a RSPCA reference at http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/News/NewsArchive&articleid=1108026313501&newsmode=normal&marker=101 which says: "RSPCA officers monitor the Waterloo Cup year upon year. The Society's chief inspector for Merseyside, Martin Marsh said: "This vile 'sport' is all about cruelty and death: on average one hare dies every five races, and it commonly takes more than 30 seconds for the hare to be killed after the dog has caught it. As the seconds tick by, the hare suffers increasing pain and distress - for the sole purpose of spectator gratification. The longest delay we have witnessed was a deplorable 125 seconds; hardly the instantaneous death claimed by pro-coursers." Mike Hobday

Mike that is old style coursing which does not take place anymore and hasnt taken place offically in ireland since 1993 or even more.Stewards would run in to save the hare if that claim was true.The topic here is about mussled coursing!Why do you think nobody has complained since we all cleaned it up?Why not write up something on old style coursing which is noww banned??That would be more feasible.Ian Davies Friend 00:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)ian davies friend[reply]

MERGE[edit]

DON'T MERGE Hare coursing and "coursing" should be separate articles SirIsaacBrock 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly merging would make sense, especially as the coursing page is a pretty short one. Especially, if this page could be made balanced, that would be helpful. Mike Hobday

No mike that would not do.This is HARE COURSING while the definition of coursing is hunting with sight dogs.This topic rightly deserves its own space.Thus why everybody was satisified with the way it was wrote and why there hasnt been a discussion for more than 3 weeks.Ian Davies Friend 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)ian davies friend[reply]

Fair reason, I accept your argument, though I think the coursuing page needs to be editted to fit your division between the subjects. At the moment, hare coursing issues have crept into the coursing page a bot too much. MikeHobday 06:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues[edit]

Cipergoth please take note that the information you provided is untrue and unfair.Im a courser and let me tell you 1/5 hares dying etc. is untrue.In clonmel this year there was no kills and in fact since the mussles were brought in hare kills have gone down enourmously.Its unfair the way the 15 or 20 so protesters get all the publicity just for turning up at the end of the coursing and roaring abuse for 10-15 minutes and the way they dont take into account the other 100 or son clean and excellent courses while they wait for the one where the hare is tossed etc.Dont mind the surveys anti bloodsports people carry out because they never ask more than 50 people,the majority of which dont know or care about coursing.Ever realise they never ask coursers?There are a plentyful supply of hares but it is threatened by a small brainless minority who trade and sell the hares to other clubs,people etc.Im totally against that and also the informal hare coursing which you have excellently pointed out in paragraph one.Well done but i find your figures wrong and untrue.To me coursing is not really a bloddsport compared to shooting and illegal badger baiting etc. which the majority of coursers would not be involved. Again well done on the editing of the topic and try to coincide it with my and previous peoples edit.Ian Davies Friend 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Ian Davies Friend[reply]

I plan to revert your changes. While you clearly have knowledge on, particularly, irish coursing that the article should benefit from, it is not a NPOV to: - remove references to kill rates, a clearly relevant issue; - say that muzzles are safer for the hare without mentionning the National Coursing Club criticism of muzzle (made to the Burns inquiry); - express opinions on why muzzled dogs occasionally pound hares into the ground; and - refer to "generosity" of irish coursing clubs; - remove the link to the League Against Cruel Sports while retaining a dead link to the irish coursing club. MikeHobday 06:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC) But I have partially incorporated some of your points, perhaps we could move on from there? MikeHobday 09:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well done mike but one major thing Figures you wrote "for kills are hotly disputed. The National Coursing Club says that, on average, one in eight hares coursed come to harm. On the other side of the argument, RSPCA Inspectors who attend the event estimate that one in five hares coursed is killed at the Waterloo Cup". That is only one side of the story.Believe me you might catch 70-80 probally even more and realisticaly hares unfit for coursing(ie.injured,sick,pregnant)are not run and are seen by a vet.So realistically out of just say 80 hares 4 might get injured not necessarily killed.Believe me if you were in clonmel this year no hare was killed or indedd for the last few years.The standard has improved and so has the slipping(refer to the article).Andlastly the bit on national coursing rules should be put under english coursing not irish where its compulsory to wear mussles.Are you anti coursing?Just wondering.Once again mike great job.Ian Davies Friend 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)ian davies friend[reply]

I didnt put in the link "while retaining a dead link to the irish coursing club".Look up the irish coursing club in google and see what the site is if there is one(www.sportingpress.ie). I have put in some things and have left your links and references.Shall we move on?Ian Davies Friend 18:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Ian Davies friend[reply]

Still a stub?[edit]

I wonder if it is time to remove the reference to this page being a stub? MikeHobday 07:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? I added some more points.You stated a few things that were not "fully" correct.Im also adding a link for master mcgrath.Ian Davies Friend 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Ian Davies friend[reply]

A stub is a technical wikipedia phrase - see link at the bottom of the article. MikeHobday 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on coursing[edit]

The following was taken off the site www.indymedia.ie.

ALF Ireland attack hare coursing venue

The Association of Hunt Saboteurs last night received a telephone call from a spokesperson representing the Animal Liberation Front in Ireland. The Animal Liberation Front is a direct action animal rights group. The spokesperson was informing us that an Animal Liberation Front unit has attacked the hare-coursing venue, Powerstown Park Racecourse, Clonmel Co.Tipperary on Saturday night - 8/01/05. In a two-hour operation, ALF members spread nails and tacks on the hare-coursing field of the racecourse and at the entrance to the venue. A number of incendiary devices were also placed around the racecourse. The ALF spokesperson said the further attacks were planned on this venue in the run up to the National Hare Coursing Finals to be held in late January early February 2005. The spokesperson said that war had been declared on animal abusers in Ireland.

I dont think that is right,that is terrorism,what about the dogs and hares that could have got hurt?Cruelty to animals is what that was end of story and also terrorismIan Davies Friend 17:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)ian davies friend[reply]

This would of course have been deplorable had it happened. However, according to http://www.scanna-msc.com/news_janfeb2005.htm#cells, the story was a hoax. MikeHobday 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya sure and this is all a dream!No mike it was true it did happen and surely it warrants an arrest.I have read up more on lacs,including the article on one of your leaders who turned from anti to pro.He said its like a cult and the people first involved in it dont know about hunting etc.15:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Ian Davies Friend 15:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)ian davies friend[reply]

Editting[edit]

Ian - could I suggest you do edits in "bulk" - doing 20 separate consecutive ones fills up the "history" page and makes it a little harder to follow the changes to the page? MikeHobday 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike i had not enough time to put it in one piece.Maybe if you stopped making the argument towards the lacs etc. then i wouldnt have had to remove some of the wrong facts that you supplied eg. 40 hares in wexford Your peole dont follow coursing so how would they know 40 hares died to capture mytopathy.The hares were obviously hunted before.Lastly mike that link does not work! Ian Davies Friend 15:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Mike you seem to reference it better.I have added points that should finish off the article only after you have seen them.Again if i said anything that annoys you then i am sorry but thats life and im entitled to my opinion.May i ask what is your organisations aim? Ian Davies Friend 16:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Ian davies friend[reply]

Further factual issues[edit]

Mike have i clarified everything??I find the 40 hares being killed due to hare myopathy in wexford far fetched.If i have made any mistakes according to the NPOV etc. then i apologise.Im just giving my side of the story just like you are.I must say that the article has improved a lot since you have joined.Ian Davies Friend 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Ian Davies friend[reply]

I think the 40 hares at Wexford story is true, but I am happy to leave it off the page until I can verify. MikeHobday 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now have a copy of the document proving 40 hares died, and I will add both the document and the claim to the article shortly. MikeHobday 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make claims which I think need to be referened to remain on the page, for example the historical link to "the time of Cúchulainn".

I also think that to say that coursing should not receive so much bad publicity is a POV and have modified this to keep the point you are making. It would be unlikely if active active coursers were consulted in a poll. Asking, for example, 1,000 people in Northern Ireland, is about 1 in 1,500 of the population. How often do any of us get approached by an opinion pollster, considering the huge number of polls published every week? MikeHobday 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coursing is the worlds oldest sport and dates back to the time of Cúchulainn.Read up on Cúchulainn and you will see the story about the hound etc.Go to the hare coursing is a sport bit at the top of this page and you will see that it there is an article about groups who ruined the event

I know about Cúchulainn, but where is the reference to him and hare coursing? A google search for 'Cúchulainn "hare coursing"' does not produce any evidence. The story may well be true (ie mythological), but, for it to remain on the article, should be referenced, I think. MikeHobday 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya i suppose not everyone has heard about him!I have referenced it,feel free to tidy it up as im in a hurry.To the 40 hares in Wexford i have seen he document myself and it also contains some of the stuff you have wrote down,Mike i find it hard to believe that 40 hares could die due to the shock of being captured.Trust me its a load of bull.Them hares would have been hunted before and are used to being chased by dogs(pets etc.) and of course foxes.I live in Ireland and you dont and trust me its far fetched(think about it),im not saying that because im a pro and your an anti.I want whats right for coursing and we the coursers hate to see a hare get killed or hurt.Thus why we shout for the hare(sounds strange,but its a fact).Put the article in if you want and thus i can put in the article on sires,former lacs man who turned from anti to pro? Ian Davies Friend 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)ian davies friend[reply]

1. Have I missed something? The reference is to the 'Cúchulainn page which does not mention coursing. I'm, not sure if your claim is that hounds go back to Cúchulainn or that hare coursing does? If the latter, I think there ought to be a reference.
2. On Wexford, why not read the evidence first?
3. The Sirl link is already present on the League page. MikeHobday 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike i read it but it did not happen.Im a courser and if that amount of hares were to die then i would say it was because of a virus.Makes sense?Im not saying you know nothing but in fairness being a hare courser i ought to know that 40 hares dying due to the shock of being captured is a load of rubbish.You must understand in relation to the Wexford article is that the people who wrote the report as far as i know do not run the meeting,have nothing to do with it or dont go near the hares,i may be wrong.Yes hounds and hare coursing go back that far,its not in the article though, but im Irish and have read and learnt stuff about Cúchulainn in the past.Like i have said before if you want to get rid of the link do so but look up Cúchulainn in google before you do anything.Ian Davies Friend 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Could i ask if you are a vegetarian?Ian Davies Friend 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burns enquiry has nothing to do with irish coursing as it was conducted in britain.Howver leave it in but put it under coursing in englandIan Davies Friend 19:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be under Irish coursing as it is a comment on muzzled coursing which only takes place in Ireland. Your critique of the NCC statement is part of they article, which I think gives the NPOV. MikeHobday 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am i mistaken or did you change your claims that the hares died from the shock of being captured to being over coursed?An eye for an eye so,im just adding the sires link now.You gave hare coursing a link and i will give the lacs link.Ian Davies Friend 21:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more articles etc. which i think are necessary to give peole a good view of both sides of the argument.Again mike i am sorry i if it upsets you in any way but thats life.I also see it necessary to add a link to the sires and cooper articles and also the attacks on hare coursing venuesIan Davies Friend 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Ian Davies Friend's changes for the following reasons:
The alleged attack on the Abbeyfeale coursing event is dicussed above. The Irish Coursing Club president Jack O’Rourke, secretary of the Abbeyfeale club is quoted (also on the article linked to on the reversed version) saying "we are sure none of the animals rights organisations were involved". There is no evidence that alleged attack on Powerstown Park coursing event ever happened. Neither article linked to in the reversed article is written in the past tense. It seems to me that the issue could be included in the article if and only if the story is true.
The League Against Cruel Sports issues are covered, where they should be, on the League Against Cruel Sports page. While declaring an interest, I see no benefit in their being replicated in an irrelevant manner on this page.
MikeHobday 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the abbeyfeale but it still is an attack.The attack on clonmel happened and the alf took responsibility.Are you trying to dodge the truth?The 40 hares in wexford is untrue.What would lacs know about that,considering they were not even at the event.If you see no purpose in them being replicated then take down the 40 hares in wexford as it is unture.I think its right to include an article about the animal rights groups as they are being portrayed as goody goodies.There was an threat to jp mcmanus that they would firebomb any properties that he has because he sponsers some coursing evetns.Its true and i feel it has to be included.This article is not a NPOV.Ian davies friend 08:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put on the article documentary evidence that 40 hares died at Wexford. You have not provided evidence that there was any attack at Powerstown Park. Certainly, it looks as if the ALF threatened to do so. Deplorable for them to do so (and I condemn that), but different to actually doing it. Surely NPOV means providing facts and balanced explanations of opinions rather than unsubstantiated allegations. Of course, if you have evidence, that is a different matter. MikeHobday 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike just because they say it happened does not mean it actually did.If so then i am entitled to put in the attack on powerstown park as there is much evidence as the 40 hares document,the attack is on 4-5 websites.I do beleive it happened and when they realised what they had done and how bad an image it gave to animal rights group they pretended it never happened,simple but true.All the article needs i a little paragraph on attacks on hare coursing venues,a link to why sires turned from anti to pro and lastly an agreement between us.I would also like to clarify that i have not lost my temper as i have laughed at some of the stuff you have wrote at the start when you taught no coursing person was on this site?Which is understandable.The 40 hares in wexford to me is far fetched,maybe it was a virus?Yes i have read the article and am sure it was a virus.If it was 15 or less then maybe i would agree that it was capture myopathy.The lacs provided that document but they dont go to coursing meetings in ireland. Now can we just move on?Im getting tired and have far more important things to be doing.Slan go foill!Ian davies friend 17:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes and feel that the article is finished.What do you think?Nobody ever gets anywhere by arguing (Except politicans!).Ian davies friend 18:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly puting in links to animal welfare groups negatives evens it out with regard to a NPOV as hare coursing is also given a negative link.Both links are essential to show the good and bad of both hare coursing and anti-coursing groups for a NPOV.Obvioulsy you can not just side with one group if you want a neutral point of view.Make sense?Maybe there should only be one or two negative links to animal welfare groups for instance just keeping one link for the "attack on the coursing venue" and another to why a "animal welfare group member changed his views"?Same goes for coursing maybe the "Hares in Wexford" and "the public opinion Northern Ireland" links/points are enough? Then i believe this article will be finished! Please agree and then you might have some time for other things far more important than some article that quite frankly the majority of people could not give a damn.HECTOR 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 rewrite[edit]

I have removed the reference to 'Attacks and Threats on Coursing venues' from the main article because there is no evidence that an attack of the sort mentionned ever happened. I have kept in the link to a threat to Mr McManus. MikeHobday 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag no longer?[edit]

When the NPOV tag was added to the article, it was five lines long [1]. Clearly, the article is a completely different one now. Perhaps the tag should be removed? MikeHobday 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of coursing in America[edit]

What is known about the legality of coursing in America?

  • Animal Place [2] say that "The following states have outlawed the practice of utilizing live animals in lure coursing: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont & Wisconsin"
  • user:12.155.13.9 says [3] that this is untrue, but that these states banned closed park coursing (not open field coursing) after a Geraldo Rivera programme.
  • the Humane Society [4] says that this program led to the National Greyhound Association deciding to outlaw the use of live rabbits at coursing events (i.e. no legislative ban). MikeHobday 21:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AB2110

Mike, too bad you don't have the courage to face up to the lies and sloppy draftsmanship involved in this bill. I'm willing to debate it here, if you will leave the truth up. Too bad you think the truth is vandalism. You even took down the bill's identification, was this to make it hard to find its legislative history to avoid embarassing its sponsor?

When you call the Bill "bizarre", that is pure POV, not encyclopaedic. Other of your edits seemed similar to me. If you know about coursing in America, how about helping out with the answer to the legality question above? MikeHobday 06:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, you admit your standard for "POV, not encyclopaedic" is how it "seemed ... to me". Isn't this pure POV?
Anyhow, the bill as finally amended and rejected forbid assesment - without injury, but exempted hunting, which often results in death. If this isn't "bizarre", would you settle for "strange"?
(The exempted hunting was in accordance with existing statutes by which coursing was legal - or no need for the bill.) The bill was ammended just before the PS committtee hearing, and one of the opposed members asked the author to explain it, but she could only refer it to her staff. Maybe the Appropriations Committee couldn't figure it out either????
Why do you insist on the link to the bill's author? Isn't this pure political POV? Would you allow a posted link to the Ms. Cohn whose vote would have killed the bill 3-3 in the PS committee if the author hadn't been appointed to the commitee for just the one vote? Why did you delete that about the 4-3 which wasn't POV but FACT?
As to helping out with the legality question: This is settled, except that you accept what the animal "rights" group said about the laws without "[citation needed]" but your POV is that the contrary was only "alleged" and requires "[citation needed]". When you twist things this way, it is apparent that you are not going to allow untwisted posting of truths not in accordance with your POV.
Anyhow, the public opposers had the letters from the state F&G commissions at the PS hearing and waved them at the chairman, but were ignored. (The 4-3 PS hearing vote was a "done deal" in any case.) If you would really like citations to the letters, contact the opposers' site.
BTW, I believe the ABC video site is now down, so the public can't check to see if the dead jackrabbits are "screaming". [67.150.161.113]
  • Actually, I wouldn't admit the Bill was strange. While I personally deplore hunting and coursing equally, there is a long record of legislation that just tackles coursing - see [5].
  • I reinserted the link to the Bill's author because I thought it relevant - Wikipedia articles often do this, and I saw no reason not to.
  • I'm not sure of the relevance of whether the Assemblywoman was added to the committee. Presumably, she was substituted on and someone else was substituted off (that's how it works in the UK). If so, she was substituted on by an authority figure who knew she would vote for her own Bill, and who could have substituted anyone else to support the Bill? The key point seems to be that one committee supported it and the other threw it out.
  • I did not add "citation required" to the Animal Place claim because the article refers to it as a claim, and the claim is referenced. The contrasting claim is not referenced. One could edit the article to say that the Stop 2110 campaign makes that claim. But neither of us can make definitive references about legality because neither of us have a primary source. I would like to find one, hence my asking the question above.
  • The ABC video is now up again - go to [6] and click on 'video' under 'related links.'
While we disagree about coursing, I am keen to include in the article all relevant facts, no matter whose case they support. MikeHobday 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International coursing[edit]

Does anyone speak Czech? [7] MikeHobday 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League Against Cruel Sport[edit]

Both images in this article were uploaded by the League Against Cruel Sports. Is the flier really needed? It seems like advertising. Klosterdev 04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the peson who inserted the photo, I would prefer a different image of muzzled coursing, but I could find no free images except this one. Unfortunately, the coursing clubs themselves do not permit photography. If you can find a good free photo, please insert it! MikeHobday 08:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg[edit]

Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coursing in other countries[edit]

Help sought at [8], [9] and [10]. MikeHobday (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible good article nomination[edit]

I'm thinking of nominating this article for a Good Article candidacy review, so would particularly welcome any thoughts about potential improvements to the article - or indeed any improvements directly! Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

I am reviewing the article for GA and will let you have comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review comments[edit]

I've put the article on hold, in the hope that we can resolve various issues within the next seven days. Aside from the matters raised here, there are some minor points - typos, MoS conventions etc, which I won't bother you with - I'll fix them myself.

First, I think you have done well to produce a balanced article, with no obvious POV problems, on such a contentious topic. A glance at the article's talk page indicates what you have been up against. However, I do have some fairly important issues to raise. They are listed here in article order, not in order of importance.

  • Lead: As written, it does not cover the whole scope of the article, and is not adequate as an introduction to what you have written.
Tried to cover this. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formal coursing
    • The sentence "...possibly the antecedents of all European sighthounds, almost certainly the antecedents of the Galgo" is too speculative, and needs some citation.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most famous quote" is an opinion that needs citation
Hard to cite this, but have tried to show it is common. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informal coursing: Second sentence is not clear as to meaning. Why did the development of cross-breeds legalise the practice for the peasantry? What were they doing previously?
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description...
    • What is NOFCA?
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The descriptions of "driven" and "walked-up" are not very clear to the uninitiated. And does the sentence beginning: "The chased hare...." etc apply to both driven and walked-up?
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't necessary to state twice in this section that the main object is to test dogs, not to kill.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there a reason for changing the season dates - rather, was the reason significant? If so, say what it was, otherwise I suggest you drop the sentence.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variations in Ireland and Northern Ireland
    • Bullet-point format would be better converted to text.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the words "be worth" are missing in the phrase "by its organisers, to be worth up to ..."
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand the logic of the sentence beginning: "Because hares are generally caught..." The conclusion is not obvious from the reasoning.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above is about half my points but I'm being interrupted. Back within the hour. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Continuing:[reply]

  • Variations in US
    • Shouldn't use America when you mean US. (I think Western America is OK because it's geographical)
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If jackrabbits and hares are the same thing, stick to one term. If they're not, explain difference
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other countries
    • Again, advise against bullet points
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont understand "Portugal as.." and "Spain as.." Should it be "has"?
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is illegal..." Is "it" referring to all forms of coursing. This has to be made clear.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversy: I think the article needs restructuring from this point, with "Controversy" as a main section, with three subsections: Welfare arguments (absorbing the Irish arguments into the UK subsection), The kill, and Conservation/pest control. All these deal with controversies, and should be grouped together.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welfare arguments
    • The first sentence gives a lot of detailed statistics, but is mainly a catalogue of injuries. What was the "welfare conclusion"?
Tried to do this. MikeHobday (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the Burns inquiry says "We are similarly satisfied...", what does "similarly" refer to?
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The kill: As this subsection is part of the welfare argument, you don't really need the points stuff at the beginning. Start para at "The number of..."?
Not sure I completely agree. The issue is whether there is an "incentive" for a kill to take place despite that not being the overall intention of the activity. What do you think? MikeHobday (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welfare arguments in Ireland: It should be clearer who is raising these welfare concerns. The second para refers to the Irish Council against Blood Sports - shouldn't they be mentioned in the context of the first para?
Tried to do this. MikeHobday (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservation/pest control: Terms like "species action plans" need explaining
Tried to do this. MikeHobday (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legislation: In view of this section's content, shouldn't the heading be changed to "Attempts at legislation"?
See what I have done, This includes removing Ireland completely. MikeHobday (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatives: Try to work this in earlier in the article - it's not worth a section on its own.
Any suggestions where, it does seem self-contained. MikeHobday (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pop culture:Advise drop this. It trivialises the article.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may raise other points after re-reading, but I think I've covered my main concerns. They may seem a lot, but most of them can, I think, be dalt with pretty quickly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now have had a run-through to pick up stray punctuation, ndashes, nbsp requirements.etc., & await your response to the main points above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA issues You have dealt with most of my concerns, and only a few points remain.

  • In "Informal coursing" the last sentence ends: "..done single-handed using a single lurcher". Why the italics, and couldn't you just say "...done using a single lurcher"?
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Description" section, season dates: you've used American date convention, for some reason. Suggest you revert to British.
I agree with you, but am not sure what the difference is. Could you advise? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done per [11]. MikeHobday (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Variations in Ireland and NI": I've re-written the last part of the last sentence, because "the collars of both dogs respectively" didn't make sense to me. I guessed you meant "the colours of the respective dogs", and I've altered to that. Please amend if you meant something else.
Clarified as colour of collar. MikeHobday (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kill": I take your point, & have inserted the words "in order to remove the kill incentive", to improve clarity.
Can't see where you have done that. MikeHobday (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Debate and legislation": I still think that my suggested "Attempts at legislation" is more apposite, but I'll leave this to you.
(Not sure because the Scotland and England/Wales "attempts" were successful, and the NI "attempt" did stop coursing. MikeHobday (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • One odd thing, though. In this section, for the first and only time, you refer to Ireland as "Republic of Ireland", and link it. You've previously referred to it as Ireland, unlinked. I personally would do a piped link on Ireland at first mention, and thereafter simply call it Ireland, or "the Republic" where a clear comparison with NI is necessary.
Agreed it was inconsistent. Have amended to distinguish between Irish coursing (North and South) and specific references which are now to the Republic or to NI. MikeHobday (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternatives": Since lure coursing is a legal form of coursing I suppose it could go as a short tailpiece to the Legislation section, but I'll leave that to you.
Tried by moving to description section, with added info, what do you think? MikeHobday (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I've done a few bits of tidy-up editing. The article is looking in good shape, and subject to the above I see no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA comment[edit]

I trust we've got Ireland properly sorted now - if you're happy so am I. The reason you couldn't find the words I said I'd inserted was because I hadn't. I have now - but somehow the words in front of it look wrong: "but this rule was said to have been deleted shortly by early 2003" - doesn't seem right. Can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to suppose that the claim that the rule had been deleted (between 2000 and 2003) was untrue, so have rewritten accordingly. Hope this works. MikeHobday (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It works if you get rid of shortly. Anyway, that's it now, I'll do the GA honours. Well done on what must have been a very long haul. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done!! MikeHobday (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This article is a comprehensive account of the activity of hare coursing, and it achieves the difficult task of presenting a balanced picture. There are no obvious MoS violations. Various issues that were raised with the main editor during the review have been resolved satisfactory. I haven't been able to check all the on-line links and references - there are about 80 of them - but a sample check indicated everything in order. The images are good.

In short, the article passes all GA criteria. It is well-written and informative, fully referenced, covers the entire subject, is neutral, stable and well illustrated. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

I don't know if you would like to include this, but since it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the talk page I'll throw the idea out. Hare coursing is featured in a long sequence in Snatch, a film by Guy Ritchie. The scene uses hare coursing as a metaphor and may be fairly interesting to include. (The hare escapes.) --Gimme danger (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would tend not to include it, mainly because its was in the article, but its deletion was recommended in the good article review process. MikeHobday (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does it "trivialise the article" and why does it need to be removed for the GA ? ☭  

мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the GA reviewer was thinking of this policy. MikeHobday (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hawkin's improvements to the article[edit]

Thanks to Richard for his series of improvements. One query: "true form of hunting" seems a subjective term to me, and I wonder if it could be rephrased or explained. MikeHobday (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, please see article re coursing versus hunting.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be unhelpful, but you're still using "true form of hunting", and I'm not sure what is meant by "appropriation." MikeHobday (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of cruelty?[edit]

The article and certainly the comments seem influenced by some sort of ethical accusation, but can someone explain this in context? Why is this occasional killing of a hare by a dog subject to so much criticism, when it is routine practice to keep cats that are free to roam and terrorize small creatures of the countryside, or for owners to feed live mice to snakes? (My own feeling is to view "animal welfare" as an organized crime that prefers the weak and the wealthy victim, but someone should find better-sourced commentary...) Wnt (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"UK and Europe"[edit]

I've simplified "UK and Europe" to "Europe" because, of course, the UK is in Europe. Maybe the intention was to emphasise the UK - if so, then perhaps "UK and elsewhere in Europe" might be more appropriate.--94.197.140.141 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia[edit]

On a similar note, can someone change the Eurasia reference? That's probably one of international geography's vaguest terms, especially since the article's already mentioned a few European countries. Brutannica (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chasse, chasse, and more chasse ...[edit]

Perhaps we should leave the French for "hare coursing" to those whose mother tongue French is - but only those who truly understand French hunting terminology! Off the top of my head, apology for not using accents - chasse a courre is the pursuit by hounds = in classic English "hunting"(scent hounds). Chasse a tir is "shooting", (gun dogs of course). Chasse a vue is a classic for 'sight hunt' (usually sighthounds). Chasse a lievre is any hunt by any hound on any hare: it is not typically coursing. In the 19th century the French called coursing le coursing - see Alfred de Sauveniere, 1899, "Les Courses de Levriers etc". However, in the last thirty years or so, the French call "lure coursing" Poursuite a vue sur leurre, which to me confirms the justification of calling hare coursing chasse a vue sur lievre - a sport which has been prohibited on open land in France since the 4th of May 1844 - the political triumph of chasse a tir --Richard Hawkins (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt you're right. But what can we do except link to the article on the french wikipedia, even if badly named? Of course, someone could go into the french site and change it! MikeHobday (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hare coursing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Hare coursing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Hare coursing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hare coursing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hare coursing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading "The Greyhound & the Hare[edit]

Please leave this reference standing. It is the ultimate source. It has nothing to do with spam!--Richard Hawkins (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"1st runner-up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1st runner-up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 22#1st runner-up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"1st runner up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1st runner up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#1st runner up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"First runner-up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect First runner-up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#First runner-up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"First runner up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect First runner up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#First runner up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Second runner-up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Second runner-up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Second runner-up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Second runner up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Second runner up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Second runner up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"2nd runner up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2nd runner up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#2nd runner up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"2nd runner-up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2nd runner-up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#2nd runner-up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Runner up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Runner up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Runner up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Second place in a competition" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Second place in a competition. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Second place in a competition until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Second prize" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Second prize. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Second prize until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Runner's Up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Runner's Up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Runner's Up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Runners Up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Runners Up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Runners Up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Runners-Up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Runners-Up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Runners-Up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Runner-Up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Runner-Up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Runner-Up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Runners up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Runners up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Runners up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Runners-up" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Runners-up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Runners-up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hare_coursing&oldid=1207549171"