Talk:Melissa Bachman

NAMG

On the first line of Career the acronym "NAMC" will be unfamiliar to the vast majority of users. I’m guessing that it refers to the North American Membership Group which should be spelled out to avoid confusion. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --GRuban (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

February 3 edits

On February 3, User:Tadeusz Nowak made a series of edits over 15 minutes that I'm afraid I disagree with. Per WP:BRD, we should probably return to article to the "status quo ante" as we discuss, but that's just an essay, though a long standing and influential one, so if Tadeusz disagrees I won't press the point. Anyway, let me address the changes individually.

1. In the lead, Tadeusz changed "Melissa Bachman ... is an American hunter" to "Melissa Bachman ... is an American trophy hunter".

   First, that doesn't really describe her as well as just "hunter". After all, she does a lot of things associated with hunting, especially teaching others through her programs, seminars, and instructional videos. She isn't really famous for the trophies she has taken - though no doubt she has taken trophies - as for the hunt itself. She's only had one record setting trophy, and she's been hunting all her life. So changing "hunter" to "trophy hunter", incorrectly limits her scope. Second, the term "trophy hunter" is mostly used as a derogatory by those that don't like her. We should certainly mention it in the section about criticism of her hunting, but not use it as the primary way to describe her in the first sentence, that would clearly be taking a stand against her, we don't do that. Finally, and most important, the majority of sources for the article do not describe her as a trophy hunter, merely as a hunter. We go by the sources.

2. Also in the lead, Tadeusz inserted " She became known in 2013 when a picture she posted on Twitter of herself next to a dead lion with the comment "what a hunt!" went viral on social media and was widely condemned by animal welfare advocates."

   First, "She became known..." is simply not true. She was known before then, with multiple in depth articles about her before the incident: Rochester Post-Bulletin, 2012; Bow Adventures, 2012; Quincy Herald-Whig, 2013 - the last specifically describes her as "Celebrity hunter". Second, putting this in the lead gives it undue weight. The lead should summarize the article, so we should certainly mention that she has been attacked for her hunting, but the details of this incident should be in the body. This wasn't the only time she was attacked, or the first time. Third, it really didn't have much of an influence on her. Compare, for example, to the other incident detailed in that section - then, she was uninvited from a major TV show - here, nothing happened, she wasn't banned from SA, no one stopped viewing her show, likely no one started viewing her show. Fourth, it didn't really have a long term impact on how the world sees her. There was certainly international news coverage of the incident, but it stopped very quickly; all the articles about it are from November 2013. Meanwhile, her show has gone on for years, and recently expanded internationally. Look at the continuing indepth articles about her: St. Cloud Times, 2014; Chaska Herald, 2015 - one doesn't even mention the incident, one only briefly. Again, we go by the sources. If they don't think it was a big deal, we shouldn't give it so much space in the lead. Finally (and this time, least important, this is only cosmetic), the Independent ref was already in the article, we shouldn't duplicate refs.

3. Again in the lead (what is this with making all changes in the lead, anyway?), Tadeusz changed "she has received personal online attacks" to "She claims to have received personal online attacks".

   That's specific insertion of a WP:WEASEL word where it wasn't needed. Note that Tadeusz didn't source that "claims" - that's because they're not "claims", as Bachman didn't claim anything; as the article says, she didn't say almost anything in response to the incident. They are specifically backed by sources that are in the article. Here they are being quoted: multiple wishes for her death...; gang rape and beheading... and those sources write those are just a random sampling. A writer for The Guardian describes these as "horrific sexist and misogynist remarks", which is putting it mildly. I will discuss the other changes, but I think I'm going to make an exception here, and remove this "claims" change entirely, without discussion, per the WP:BLP exception to edit warring. This is horrible.

4. Finally, a change to the article body. Putting a {{who}} tag into the sentence: "International commentators claimed that the online anger directed at Bachman was extraordinary, sexist, and misogynist, and that evidence showed that banning hunting drives species extinct much more than controlled hunts do."

   Well, as you can see, that sentence is sourced with 4 sources. 2 from South Africa, one from the US, one from the UK. 3 countries (on as many continents), clearly international. And yes, all 4 mention both the horrible attacks and the benefits of controlled hunts, just 2 focus more on one than on the other, so I thought they would be more appropriate split. So "who" is clearly answered. If others really want, I can find even more reliable sources writing this, but I somehow thought 4 would be enough. --GRuban (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Going ahead due to lack of response for 6 days. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

References