moved from talk:particle physics. Let's discuss how to handle this:

Golf is a uniquely destructive game and has uniquely determined opponents - there is an Anarchist Golfing Association that tears up genetically-damaged grass, complaints by various NGOs that pressure to sell land to golf developers has led to farmers in the Phillipines being killed for it, that golf creates a monoculture ecology and requires massive maintenance and pesticides that destroy everything around it, and that all attempts to make it more ecologically friendly (i.e. more "rough" areas left alone, raised-bump balls that fly half as far on very small specially designed courses) have totally failed to catch on widely.

To be fair, if there are other games that have that kind of objection list, or opposition, let's hear it. If any other "game" becomes so emblematic and demonstrative of Dominator culture that it has to be destroyed, then the page on that game must reflect that controversy. Golfers don't define what golf means, and physicists don't define what particle physics means, and there must at least in both cases be links to separate articles describing the entire controversy. I'm just opening up the issue to a general discussion - when you have a field or game that seems non-controversial to its supporters but brutal and evil and wasteful to it's opponents, how should we handle it? An article on the game and a separate one on the politics? All in one place so the two groups *must* encounter each other? What?

An article on the game and a separate one on the politics, or a separate one for each political school of thought which is worth an encyclopedia article. Matthew Woodcraft

the approach I tried re w:particle physics was to leave the PP basic article alone, and carefully outline what a w:particle physics foundation ontology (i.e. PP standard model used as an FO) meant to other sciences and culture. That was questioned and sabotaged repeatedly with petty objections that had no merit nor ethical process - the PPFO article was questioned even though the overly-abbreviated terms "particle zoo" and "particle ontology" are in very common use, even the idea that there *COULD BE* a w:foundation ontology other than PP's current w:Standard Mode <-- note the name imperialism, there are lots of "Standard Models" and most Americans, even, think that means a car. Eventually the PPFO article was cut back to a bare minimum that math fetishists and physics geeks could stand, then jammed into particle physics where even that was cut out by cultists. This was all grist for the mill, and it illustrated a destructive clique that must be politically eliminated, but it was hardly fun. I presume exactly the same thing will happen with golf, with social psychology, with (unethical) investing, with (amoral) purchasing, and dozens of other activities which are incompatible with the new millenium.

that said, I'll back any reasonable scheme you can lay out, and I'll pound at the golfers in talk pages without mercy, until we at least force all of them here to acknowledge that the controversy is real and will not go away until their "game" goes away - same argument as the particle accelerator gollums. And, since I've been on the side of the angels for these two things, I'll switch over to the side of Satan and defend the 50 useless Ayn Rand articles or articles tainted with Rand or Popper so they retain their essential character. Just to be balanced... I'm still concerned that none of these concerns is all that close to the meta:three billionth user - whose interests I keep firmly in mind. I expect he's a phillipine tenant farmer about to be shot by thugs so his land can go for golf...

--- Golf blows. Bye. -w!z

I would like to modify the environmental section and make it a little more neutrally worded. In reading it, I feel that there is a little too much unbalanced political commentary in there. Since I'm new here I didn't want to just go ahead and do it.

Does anyone have any supporting data to show that the Olympics dropped golf because of concerns of cutting of forests. The only information I have is that it was dropped because of a dispute between the R&A and the British Olympic authorities over the makeup of their team in the 1908 games in London and that it was dropped because of that. Given that most if not all courses at the time were on open links land or moors I have a hard time believing the comments about destruction of forests being any kind of significant reason.

Below is my take on a possible replacement for the Environmental section, feel free to modify it.

A major result of modern equipment is that today's players can hit the ball much further, along with safety concerns, modern golf course architects have had to lengthen and widen their design envelope. This has led to a 10% increase in the amount of acreage that is required for golf courses today. At the same time, water restrictions placed by many communities have forced the modern architect to limit the amount of maintained turf grass on the golf course. While most modern 18-hole golf courses occupy as much as 150 acres of land, the average course has 75 acres of maintained turf. - [Sources include the National Golf Foundation and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA)].

Environmental concerns over the use of land for golf courses have grown over the past 30 years. People are concerned over the amount of water and types of chemicals used as well as the desctruction of wetlands and other environmentally important areas.

These concerns along with concerns over cost and health issues have led to significant research into more environmentally sound practices and turf grasses. The modern golf course superintendent is well trained in the uses of these practices and grasses. This has led to reductions in amount of chemicals and water used on courses. The turf on golf courses is an excellent filter for water and has been used in many communities to cleanse grey water. While many people continue to oppose golf courses for environmental reasons, there are others who feel that they are plus for the community and the environment as they provide corridors for migrating animals and sanctuarys for birds and other wildlife.

Golf courses are built on many different types of land including sandy links areas along coasts, abandoned farms, strip mines and quarries, deserts and forests. Many Western countries have instituted significant environmental restrictions on where and how courses can be built.

In some parts of the world, attempts to build courses and resorts have led to significant protests along with vandalism and violence by both sides. Although golf is a relatively minor issue compared to other land ethics questions, it has symbolic importance as it is a game normally associated with the wealthier Westernized population, and the culture of colonization and globalization of non-native land ethics. Resisting golf tourism and golf's expansion has become an objective of some land reform movements, especially in the Philippines and Indonesia.

- John

This looks like a step forward in the evolution of the Golf article. I'll replace that section with your version. Kosebamse 08:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)