Talk:Dog fighting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog fighting article.
Article policies
WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] North America

Dog fighting is illegal in all North American countries.

Central America is part of North America and I thought Mexico didn't have any laws against dog fighting. If I thought wrong, could someone cite a source for that quote? Arthur Curry (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article is horribly biased.

Indeed, people should keep their personal feelings out of this article. 66.174.93.101 05:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Because of the Michael Vick case in the U.S., I think this page has had a number of first-time or irregular visitors looking for an outlet for their outrage. For now I've added the POV-section tag to the Impact section, which is where the most work is needed. Then I'll take a run at removing some of the more emotional parts of the discussion. This won't be pretty, because here in the U.S. virtually everyone agrees dogfighting is abhorrent, and so many WP newcomers won't quite understand that WP is an encyclopedia, not a sounding board. We'll need to refer them gently and repeatedly to WP:NPOV and WP:ABOUT. Dpiranha 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see the changes I've just made. I removed discussions of some specific incidents, added a few "citation-needed" tags (they should not be difficult to procure sources for), and toned down the rhetoric a lot. More rework and removal is needed but I'll let the original authors of the content make those decisions. Please remember that anecdotal evidence or individual news accounts are not WP:VERIFY material, but formal studies and statistical evidence is. Dpiranha 16:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In doing so, please keep the cultural and legal differences in various parts of the world in mind; the fact that it is illegal in the U.S. (right or wrong) fuels the connections to other illegal activities, so it is a big problem for our society here, even if it isn't elsewhere. One could draw an analogy to the impact of marijuana laws in that regard. Mark in Historic Triangle 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point; this is an article where cultural differences are significant. I removed a few more questionable lines from the Image section (I don't know what I was thinking earlier when I left in the sweeping, citation-less generalization against all law enforcement agencies.) I also tried to tighten the paragraph on Vick which you added to earlier; the facts were fine, but it was getting a little bit lengthy. There's a separate WP article on Bad Newz Kennels for readers interested in the sordid details. Dpiranha 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, another problem: I had a look at the references used in the Impact section, such as animallaw.com, and they are pure advocacy sites with biased content, not any sort of legal clearinghouse as the name suggested. They're inappropriate sources for WP per WP:NPOV. I am inclined now to delete the entire Impact section (saving only the Vick reference) and have the authors start over if they wish. Thoughts? Dpiranha 13:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would leave it alone and add. If I recall correctly, the remaining source (Michigan State University College of Law) was joined by a number of others before other editors attacked the article and worked to remove anything that was negative about dog fighting in the U.S. related to other criminal activity. Just do a Google search if you think such information is limited to the animal equivalent of "tree huggers". Most of the sources I get hits on are more related to inner city violence, drugs and gangs than focused on animal rights. Whether we start over or not in this article, to me, while I personally care very much about the humane treatment of animals, and even understand how some cultures do not even consider "humane" by the same criteria as I do, a bigger issue and the one which has fueled the new tougher federal laws in the U.S. and greatly increased law enforcement efforts here, and it would appear will continue to do so, is the link to other crimes which hurt and kill people. The murder rate in the old "Bad Newz" neighborhood has increased this year and tolerating underground criminal cultures has a lot of well-documented links to that problem. Mark in Historic Triangle 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying, but it's tangental. The issue is the bread-and-butter WP requirement of NPOV, and many of the sources cited in the section don't come close to qualifying as encyclopedic. Had someone added a section to this article listing the "benefits" of dogfighting (e.g., "it provides gainful employment for unemployed youth") and cited some pro-dogfighting website as the source, would we let it stand? I sure hope not. You're welcome (and strongly encouraged and urged) to "do a Google search" and replace the AnimalLaw.com references with those from neutral news sources, or even from biased but academic sources like the Humane Society's reference library. Dpiranha 18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
An anon user replaced the line about how dogfighting was largely ignored by LEAs after it was outlawed in the U.S. Perhaps that's true, particularly in some parts of the country, but a sweeping generalization like that requires an unbiased citation to be WP-worthy. I reverted the edit and will keep an eye on the section going forward. Nothing personal, but this section has serious NPOV issues already, and that line only makes matters far worse. Dpiranha 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history of dog fighting article

I have created History of dog fighting and moved some the Dog fighting article to it. The Dog fighting article still have room for expansion. Elf-Masher 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you can provide a rough list of topics that you think this article might expand to cover; at the moment it's gotten pretty short and it's not clear where it's going to go from here if it doesn't talk about the history. Elf | Talk 01:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Expansion...the people that want to cram everything together, have never added one edit to the Dog Fighting article, they are just trolls...forget about them... (removing barely veiled threat. Elf | Talk) Elf-Masher 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] which template?

Weirdly, I don't think this entry should have the Template:Baiting on it. Instead, I think it should have the Template:Bloodsports on it. Baiting is using a dog to harry a different animal into fighting. This is a bloodsport, setting two dogs at each other. You don't need to harry the dogs, since they're trained to be mean. Agree or disagree?--Mike Selinker 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the definition of bait (dogs) it is the correct +cat SirIsaacBrock 10:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Are extra dogs used to harry the dogs that will fight? Not in my understanding.--Mike Selinker 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop acting foolish SirIsaacBrock 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pit Bull lobby POV

Even though it is illegal, dog fighting still occurs across the globe, often in connection with drug dealers and other criminals. The dogs used and bred for this contribute to the negative image of pit bulls. Before even telling us that Pit Bulls are used in dog fighting, we learn that the breed's image suffers as a consequence of this. The Pit Bull lobby strikes again! 136.186.1.117 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the pit bull is the preferred dog in dog fighting and that is what most people think of when they think of dog fighting.Bokatoh 00:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Vick Allegations

I am removing them, they have no place in the introductory paragraph, or the entire article for that matter Tiki2099 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

There needs to a section on criticism of dog fighting. Yes, we've mentioned that it's illegal, but we need to explain why. A few quotations from animal-cruelty officials would be nice. Funnyhat 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

we need to be neutral. i dont see any part of the article that says dogs fights is good. if you're going to part a part about the criticism you must put a part where you talk about the positive.Wikid00d88 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Law

This section is pretty opionated. The sentence, "Those who keep dogs for fighting purposes have no regard for the law, so outlawing their dog's breed just encourages them to find another breed suitable for fighting or to keep their dog out of the public eye." isn't factual at all, it's pure opinion.

While it's easy to see where the writer's opinions lie, it's a pretty factual sentence. By definition, if you BREAK a law, you have no REGARD to it. Say I smoke marijuana regularly. I would therefore have no regard for drug laws. See the logical connection? I certainly hope you are in no way defending the living scum who partake in this abominable practice; if you are, then you are a *** idiot. James 02:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You can add {{{Fact}}} at the end of paragraphs you want a citation or reference, just don't go overboard with it. PianoKeys 20:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The comment leaps to the conclusion that because someone has little respect for dog fighting laws, they don't respect laws in general. There may well be a connection, but that should be sourced. Also, your comment borders on an ad hominem, which is a big no-no on wikipedia. Rdore 01:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split article for US?

Recently, laws and enforcement efforts against dog fighting and related activities in the US have become a major items in the news. As we follow all of this, should we be considering splitting off the US portion? The only other area where my web searches on this subject get lots of hits on news articles seems to be the UK. Also, I seem to be the only editor doing recent edits along those lines. Someone else should at least be looking over that work to make sure it is NPOV, balanced, etc. Comments, anyone? Vaoverland 05:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored a large chuck of content that was simply edited out without following our WP procedures for splitting an article. I don't think we should ignore all the increased law enforcement activity going on, but it is getting to where we may wish to consider the split, IMHO. Meanwhile, I am just trying to keep our article up-to-date and accurate, using only credible sources. Vaoverland 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Please look at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to create a good looking reference instead of open ended ones using only the URL. PianoKeys 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input

  • Split - a lot of good information on US dogfighting, but it is to long and to specific, it should be moved to a new article. Call it Dogfighting in the United States. PianoKeys 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A new article Dog fighting in the United States has been created as per above. I have chopped out a lot in this article and moved it over. Vaoverland 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dog/Animal Aggression vs. Human Aggression

I think adding a section or mentioning this topic could be helpful in providing some understanding of some of the breeds used in dog fighting (there is already an entry for this so mentioning it and then linking to it would probably be sufficient). For example, why is there mention of two Rottweilers mauling a girl. Rottweilers are not typically used as fighting dogs. This breed suffers from many of the problems inherent in mastiff type breeds--bad hips, overheating, and not particularly noted for being animal aggressive. So why include that in the article, seems completely unneccesary and doesn't really go towards the issue of dog fighting.

This also goes towards the idea tha once a dog is trained to fight it is dangerous to humans. It depends on the breed. Some breeds need little or no training due to selective breeding and genetics while other breeds might need more training.Bokatoh 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Mention of Cadey-Lee Deacon/Rottweiler Reference

It had nothing to do with dog fighting as rottweilers are not typically fighting dogs, the dogs in question were guard dogs, not fighting dogs, and basically it was totally unrelated to the topic.--Bokatoh 00:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== Removed Mention Micheal Vick ==

Come on people , The Vick Statements in the introductory statements aren't appropriate

[edit] NPOV only American point of view

Hmmm this whole article has too much emphasis on Americans POV . In my country Dog Fighting is legal and has long history in out country , and we don't care what your thoughts are in the US.

~There are separate sections for different countries. There's no way to cover the legality of dogfighting in every country in the world, but if you really want to, you can add a section on the Dominican Republic, since I have no idea about the laws there. For the most part though, if you really don't care what people in the US think, then you can't expect them to care what you think either.

  • I honestly thought this first comment was a crank and was inclined to delete it, but it looks like it may have been serious. Credibility would have been lent through the use of a signature, however. Please use signatures for your comments. Thanks. Also, if you feel that strongly about it, you should add a subsection (or link to a new article) discussing Dog Fighting Outside the United States. croll 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for not deleting it , and taking me seriously. I'm going to work on that signature asap .I'm actually a Vet student, and there are seriously different points of view depending where you live ,where I come from people see their animals killed before they eat them so they don't have the same sensitivity as suburban Americans may , even though they eat more beef than anyone . I guess its just that they don't want to meet their food before they eat it .

--190.0.78.40 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Registering and getting a user ID is simple, with few details required, and it is free. You can login from almost anywhere, and communications with the rest of us is easier. Please work on content about your country and how it is handled and regarded. We need better cultural understanding all the way around. Thanks. Vaoverland 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that parts of the article are quite POV. A lot of the "Impacts upon modern society" section should be moved to the article about dog fighting in the US. From the other parts of the article alone it is clear that many of the social impacts of dogfighting are very culture dependent. Rdore 01:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for protection

Considering this is going to be a hot topic for awhile, I'd like to recommend that it be protected for at least 2 months or until the charges are dropped. If they are carried forward, then protection might be extended for the foreseeable future. --Hourick 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that I just deleted a potentially libelous comment, I'm inclined to agree though I'd be surprised if the Admins granted two months. We may just need to keep a close eye on the article. croll 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin; I request that we watch it and see. Please contact me on my talk page if it starts being more of a problem. If we can keep up without that action, obviously that would be best. We are struggling with the more specific articles, even with semi-protection. Mark. Vaoverland 09:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Societal impact, gang and criminal activities

The first three paragraphs of this newly-added section section are unsourced and should be removed if references cannot be provided. The (presently) fourth paragraph, regarding Michael Vick, does not belong under this section/

Please use a signature when adding comments as it helps keep track of who is saying what. Thanks. You're correct in that the section needs to be referenced. I'm going to put up a tag accordingly. As for the Michael Vick thing, while I'm leary of edits that could render it libelous, why doesn't it belong? If there's a seperate article, perhaps we should just include a link to that in a "See Also" section, but I don't think it's irrelevant to the article. croll 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) P.S., I just checked the animallaw reference link at the end of the section, and that seems to be the source and substantiate the assertions in the prior paragraphs about dog fighting generally (but not the Michael Vick component). If that's a valid source, I think the section can be properly wikified. croll 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Those dogs do not look very hostile to me. How about replacing it with an historical picture of a dog fight? Steve Dufour 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

PETA is hardly an unbiased source anyways. It's not clear if the dogs in the picture are actually fighting or just playing. 24.60.163.16 08:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domestication of old fighting breeds

Coffee2theorems - thanks for adding -how to- tag. In review, it seems like this entire section could be pulled since it really has nothing to do with dogfighting, more like dog breeding. Plus the essential info re. breeding is in the preceeding section. If you agree, go ahead and remove it, or I will in a day or so. Bob98133 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV issue

I didn't add the POV tag, but I think it is reasonable. A lot of the issues mention in social effects section are specific to the US or at least need to be more carefully sources if they're claimed more broadly. In fact, ever more specifically I suspect they describe the US today, and aren't even representative of their effect in the US historically. Is dog fighting associated with criminal elements in places were it is legal? Is the bait animal problem something that happens in those places? I certainly think there is useful information in the section, but I also definitely agree the section is biased as it currently stands, especially towards an American-centric point of view. Rdore 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed

the bait section doesnt really need that many citations. i think its common sense.

""Bait" animals are used to test a dog's fighting instinct, and these animals are often mauled or killed in the process." (citation needed)

If you use a an animal to test to test about the killer instinct of an other animal then its likely the test animal will die. Wikid00d88 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)