Talk:Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation article.

Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 29, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Note

The content of this article was moved from the Michael Vick article on July 10, 2007. All contributors are reminded that we are working hard to keep this subject within WP policies. Special attention to WP:NPOV and WP:CITE is requested. Vaoverland 09:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intro?

the intro to this article is hopelessly anti dog-fighting. It reeks of bias, please fix it. Skerlnik 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias? Yep, of course, it is anti-dog fighting! The whole article is about a criminal investigation of violations of state and federal laws, and allegations of extreme brutality beyond that. There is no need to fix what ain't broken. I would suggest that if you want to advocate for dog fighting, do it in the dog fighting article. Vaoverland 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
"hopelessly anti dog-fighting". . .isn't that like saying "hopelessly anti rape or murder"? last time i checked, dog fighting was a crime. somehow i don't think wikipedia would suffer much if an article was against a crime.
NPOV is a hopelessly flawed concept, and these comments are proof of that concept. The matter is a current event that took place in the US and as such it is subject to US laws and values. The article needs to be respectful of the fact that no one has been convicted, and charges are alleged. It does not need to be respectful of other countries' laws and values, which are irrelevant to this topic. Sorry, but POV is unavoidable. Start your own topic on the wonderful "sport" of dog fighting in your country....and be sure to keep it neutral. <irony> 68.35.184.95 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

also, you might want to expand on the fact that Vick et al can also be charged at the state level, if Poindexter would get off his ass. It was just a few years ago that VA made animal cruelty a felony when it results in the death of an animal. So for each dog killed, Vick and friends can spend up to 12 months in jail.

Expand the article on this: Bad Newz wasn't just fighting among themselves; there were certainly other dog fighting teams involved. This article makes no mention of that whatsoever. You can't have a dogfight with just one team. --Mmathu 07:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments: I have been following all this closely. I live in another Virginia county which borders Surry, so I am getting the local perspective as well as the broader one in the media. Virginia law is tougher than you say; it provides 1 to 5 years in prison per violation, not just 12 months. The lowest term set forth for any felony in the Code of Virginia is 1 year. I also think that we need to remember that Surry (local) officials are up against what is, from all indications, a very well-funded criminal enterprise, and they lack the resources of the feds. For one example, the feds have at least one forensic vet working on evidence. The fruits of all that effort will fall into local hands for their use. In this situation, they are pretty much faced with having to build their local cases from what the feds give them access to, which will come slowly as the feds are not going to want to reveal too much of their own case at the early stages of their own prosecution. The physical evidence from the site alone isn't sufficient; they need the people and witnesses. If anyone thinks the delay at the county level means there will be no effort at prosecution, I believe that will be proved not correct. I think that Poindexter and Brown have a good awareness that their citizenry does not want the to look the other way, or fail to pursue the local charge angle; let us not forget that these guys have to face election campaigns. The whole affair has already done great damage to Surry's reputation, but a poorly handled prosecution would do even more. The reality is there is plenty of time to move under Virginia laws and doing it right seems more responsible than rushing right now. My gut is that the citizens of Surry and a local jury will see justice done under Virginia laws, but we may have to wait a spell. At least, no more harm is happening to more animals and all this big bucks gambling and related corruption seems to have been curtailed, at least by these guys at this location. Surry is a black-majority county, and no where else would these guys face greater efforts to make sure they are not treated unfairly because they are black. However, I think they would be sorely ill-advised to think that race will help them be not held accountable for their actions, if those are what they appear to have been. We shall see, and try to keep our WP article NPOV and factual as we do so. Vaoverland 04:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Is Wikipedia an America only reference ? Because in my country Dog Fighting is legal . The whole tone should have a NPOV regardless . Besides should this even be eligible for an article ?

The point still remains that dog fighting is illegal in the US--"Bad Newz Kennels" participated in a felonious act. I don't think having a negative tone with regard to crimes constitutes POV. Otherwise, you could probably better spend your time checking for POV on the dog fighting page, or possibly the stoning and honor killing pages.

Also, because this is a matter of high interest for US pop culture, I think that its important to be able to obtain information about it through Wikipedia.

Otherwise, you could probably better spend your time checking for POV on the dog fighting page, or possibly the stoning and honor killing pages.

Killing people isn't the same as animals.

I'm not saying that they are the same thing. What I'm saying is that just because something is legal or ignored in one country doesn't make it ethically right. There's nothing wrong with having a negative tone toward something that is widely considered to be wrong.

I want to chime in here; those of us contributing to this article have worked diligently to be NPOV within the topic of an investigation of illegal activities in the U.S. The laws etc. are facts, not any editor's opinions. In a democracy, we have laws by the people and for the people. So, since you are in another country with different laws, and this article makes it very clear that it is a U.S. situation, it is no more right for you to try to interject a position from your country into how we report this sad story here than it would be for us to go into a report of your dog fighting industry and try to interject our opinions or laws which are different.

We took the U.S. content almost entirely out of the dog fighting article and put it in it's own article: Dog fighting in the United States. Beyond that, this article is about a specific criminal investigation in the United States, so what do the laws (or customs) in some other county have to do with it anyway? There are ample facts that in the U.S., the practice of dog fighting is outlawed everywhere, and has been proved in the U.S. to be frequently tied to other crimes as it apparently was in this case. It is an increasingly unacceptable activity here, as evidenced by new and harsher laws, increased penalties, and calls for more. There are protests against it by members of the public. Meanwhile, it would seem that no one in the U.S. is advocating for it, anyway. If they were, WP could and should present that in the DF in US article. However, there seems no controversy here in the U.S. about the laws, except that more enforcement is needed and desired by the public, and is in fact, underway.

Regarding differing customs and practices around the world, the DF article would seem to be the place for you to be sure an article is NPOV from an international perspective. The existing article would benefit from some explanation and rational about why it is lawful or a good thing in a place like your country, since it is the opposite in many places around the world, with those explanations fairly well articulated. I, for one, would be interested in reading and trying to understand that better. Our cultures must be very different Vaoverland 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Vick article content

I am starting a cleanup of the Michael Vick article. I will be providing a two paragraph summary of the situation with a {{main}} link to this article. In the meantime, I have stored an exact copy of the section from the Michael Vick article on my user subpage at User:Jmfangio/bad newz. If you are going to include any of that information here, please remove it from that subpage for me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


This article contains references to media accounts of court documents instead of the court documents. for example. " WAVY-TV reported that detectives also seized guns, illegal ammunition magazines, suspected marijuana and paperwork on dog fighting.[17]"

I don't know of a single Federal or Virgina law that would limit ammunition magazines. What do the documents really say? We know how often the news media is wrong.

Well at least we have attributed the statement to "TV reported" rather than simply stating "illegal ammunition magazines". Could any illegality be due to felon status of some the men apparently involved? How do we address this? let us be mindful that this was the state/local guys search (Aptril 25), not the feds (June 7 and July 6), so there are no documents public yet as best I can determine. Vaoverland 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorg overhaul suggestions

I think the article needs a thorough review as it has been growing with events and in the light of retrospect, could be presented better and more logically. I am thinking that a section to provide information on the individuals would be sensible. Comments or suggestions on that concept and any other aspect? Vaoverland 22:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead section has gradually grown bigger and bigger. It is accurate, but has become way too big. Some of the earlier details are just not major anymore. It needs to be condensed. Mark in Historic Triangle 18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps maybe get rid of the any information that is obsolete or irrelevant and prune it down a bit. --Hourick 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I hacked it down and made most of it an "Overview" section. It still needs cleanup, but at least you can see the TOC again. Sidatio 21:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates?

Not really sure why coordinates are given for this article, since it is about an investigation, which naturally has no fixed location. I suppose it's for the location of the kennel itself, but still. hateless 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refractored text from Vick article

What follows is an exact replica of text i recently refractored from the main article. It needs to be incorporated here, but seeing as I'm more focused on cleaning up the main article - i thought housing it here would be the first step Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Begin in 1981? You mean Vick owned a dogfighting kennel when he was 1 year old! No wonder he's going to jail. I think that's supposed to be 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.101.110 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Criminal

I am adding this to the federal section of this article, for all four defendants in one box. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename article?

I assume the word "investigation" was included very early on in the article creation, when it was a current news event and the charges were unproven. Now that most of the participants have been found guilty or accepted plea bargains, I think we can and should call it an "incident" or "case" or the like. Calling it an "investigation" gives the false impression that this article is about the investigation of the incident, when it is in fact about the incident itself.

Some clean-up is required. The "timeline" section probably should be written out in prose and/or integrated into the article structure.Wikidemo (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose at this time (February 2008). While it will be absolutely necessary, I suggest that you re-propose once all of the STATE trials are closed. This article concerns the federal case (which is closed), AND the related state case which has separate charges (still OPEN, with trials to start in spring 2008. At that time, renaming it to a case may be warranted.--AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time (February 2008). The Trials are still open, please to not rename —Preceding unsigned comment added by S kirkness (talkcontribs) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename - Just call it Bad Newz Kennels. The article makes it clear that the investigation is the major event here, but it's inappropriate as a title since this wasn't spun off from a main article for Bad Newz Kennels. Torc2 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename I agree with a change to Bad Newz Kennels at this time. I am the user who created this article, which was a spin-off from Michael Vick. It was just an investigation at that time, and of course, it develope dinto a lot more than just that. The subject is more than one "case" with more than one "bad guy", and more than a single event, since the story really includes disposition of the dogs also at this point, as well as still-pending trials, and ongoing civil items. I think the simplified name really adequately identifies the content for this well-known subject by now and is less limiting. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Then try something like Bad Newz Kennels case, which is shorter and describes the article more succinctly. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why would you insist on having 'case' in the title? It seems backwards to me not to make the kennel itself the center of the topic.Torc2 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

This is the part of the article I feel most needs cleanup, being turned into easily followable prose to make the article look more presentable. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)