Talk:Operation Falcon (USFWS operation)

[Untitled]

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Glen Luckman has been editing out references to his participation in this operation as his entries have been removed I suggest someone lock out non-member editing of this page, his involvement is spelled out in the book by Paul McKay, "The Pilgrim and the Cowboy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.132.134 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a lack of objectivity. The RINGLEADER? I'll go through this. JT (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up some aspects. The entire piece needs to be edited down to a comprehensive story. I'll take a whack at doing so in the next day or so. JT (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up a few of the random links and NPOV talk. Don't have time to rewrite this unfortunately. 209.180.87.42 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this page (EBusinessArchitecture (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)). It appears the person you accuse of editing is not at fault? I deleted the references because I can find no reference except what you post. Unfortunately, I can not afford the $104 book you reference at Amazon... It would appear that you have a personal problem with the person unrelated to the article? Please become familiar with Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view. Penalties for posting to annoy someone include stiff fines and prison according to Federal Stalking Law. EBusinessArchitecture (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reversed "EBusinessArchitecture"'s deletions. While the article is in need of serious cleanup, a quick search through Google Books identified numerous references to Glen Luckman in connection with this incident. (Titles include The pilgrim and the cowboy and Cool White North, among others.) In addition, I would caution "EBusiness" against issuing threats and making unsupported accusations. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if EBusinessArchitecture is involved in either willful self blinding or is complicit in trying to keep it "biased" despite his claims to the contrary.

Beyond your obvious checking of google books this man's involvement can be confirmed by contacting the Wildlife departments in Canada and the US, OR looking up the case histories.'

I believe that this man is editing the entries because he has bought up numerous websites in an attempt to place those sites higher up on google/dogpile results through the use of what are essentially placeholder and patently bogus "blogs"

The reason that I believe this is occurring now is I am starting to believe that this man is one and the same with a local (to me)businessman with the same name, who is experiencing a run of luck in expansion. I was researching the backstory on him for an article and came across this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.237.12 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found additions glorifying Alan Parrot's role (if there even was one) in Op Falcon and accusing the Peregrine Fund of defending falcon smugglers. Parrot has a bone to pick with just about every legitimate falconry organization and regularly makes unfounded accusations against the P-Fund and Nick Fox. I have removed these additions. This entry should be locked. 5/11/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.11.152 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbification

After a complaint to OTRS was reviewed, it became clear rather quickly that this article was seriously skewed to one point of view. There didn't seem to be any way to rescue the article in that shape, so a rewrite from scratch using appropriate sources seems to be the best way to go. Despite how many people might feel about the operation, the article needs to factually present both sides - it cannot sound like an opinion piece. If anyone has any questions or concerns about the article or Wikipedia guidelines in general, I'd be happy to do what I can to help. Shell ^babelfish 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have a textbook example of why Wikipedia is not well-respected in academic circles as a primary source of information. This article has been rewritten by someone who knows little or nothing about the topic and who used three short newspaper clippings instead of the two books, two research articles, contradicting USFWS press releases, court documents (including a Supreme Court decision regarding USFWS agents using entrapment techniques, of which McPartlin's numerous deceptions were pivotal in), and numerous other primary sources that are substantially more in-depth and reputable than three short newspaper stories. Stuebner and McKay's books, in particular, are excellent and--though hard to find--are available through your local library's inter-library loan request service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.30.91 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original references

Sorry I forgot this earlier - this is a list of the original references used in the article.

Steubner, Stephen (2002). Cool North Wind: Morley Nelson's Life with Birds of Prey (Illustrated ed.). Caxton Press. pp. 429. ISBN 0870044265.
http://www.themodernapprentice.com/5yr_study.doc (this appears to be a study, would suggest actual citation is necessary here)
McKay, Paul. The Pilgrim and the Cowboy. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1989. (ISBN 0-07-045317-9)
North American Falconers Association (NAFA). "Longitudinal Analysis of Cases, Violations, and Citations involving the MBTA Regulations from January 1, 2000 through April 20, 2005." Hawk Chalk, Dec 2005. (this may be the correct citation for the study in the second reference)
Department of the Interior News Release for Operation Falcon (1984).
USFWS Falconry and Raptor Propagation Regulation Final Assessment (1988). (unreliable site?)
The Peregrine Fund. (not certain what this was meant to reference, no inline citation given)

Shell ^babelfish 01:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]