Talk:DogsBite.org

Banner

Nomopbs and PearlSt82 and anyone interested, how do you feel about removing both or either of these bannered problems? Have the issues been dealt with to a level that the "warnings" can be removed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind if you remove them. Nomopbs (talk)

No objections to the banner removal. I think the article could use a good touch-up for prose, style and tightness, but that isn't anything pressing. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I hereby declare this a consensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Comment

I stumbled across this while reverting an edit which was questionably vandalism. However, the criticisms of this site are buried at the bottom. Shouldn't there be mentioned of the widespread criticism (lack of scientific methodology, lack of accuracy in identifying "breeds" of dogs, etc.) in the lede? Ifnord (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Per the coverage in the article, there's a good case for having a sentence on critisism in the WP:LEAD. That said, the current lack doesn't need the "article wide problem" banner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

While I recognize there has been much deliberation over this article, I cannot help but disagree. Reading it for the first time, it appears to be a benevolent organization dedicated to educating the public about this epidemic of pit bull attacks and how they are working to remove this breed. Only at the end does it suggest there may be problems with the organization's methodologies and motives. And the problems appear serious, well sourced in reliable publications and broadcasts. I would say this is article wide. (Full disclosure, I have neither connection with the organization nor own such an animal.) Ifnord (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree the article could use a re-write. I believe previous issues have been sorted out and I suspect deliberations should go much smoothly a second time around. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There is some [1] hope of that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I've slighty re-written the article, mainly to take out a few sentences that seemed undue or promotional, include the cricitism in the lede and smooth out some of the awkward prose. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Seeing no commentary or changes, I've removed the NPOV tag - feel free to reinsert if there are additional issues with the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP applies to this article

Please note that the organization DogsBite.org is run by a single person, Colleen Lynn, and therefore WP:Biographies of living persons (BLP) applies to this subject. From the policy: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Normal Op (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. This is an article about her website/organization, not her. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write the Wikipedia policy; I'm just quoting it. And since the subject organization is run by and published by a single person, BLP most definitely applies. Normal Op (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think many will agree with your interpretation, but you're certainly welcome to open a WP:BLPN if this discussion doesn't attract more people. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Even the Radio Canada article supports this, to wit: "The DogsBite.org site ... DogsBite.org founder Colleen Lynn, a bite victim herself, says her site ... She also indicates that her site ... and that her site ..." There is no source that I have ever read that associates any other person with DogsBite.org (organization or website). There is no "staff" listed on the dogsbite.org website, and Colleen Lynn is the only person mentioned on the website (see About page). The use of "we" on the dogsbite about page is an editorial we. Normal Op (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that Lynn is the sole operator of the organization. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognize the fact. Normal Op (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also keep in mind the first sentence of the policy is "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies.", and dogsbite.org is indeed a registered 501c3 legal entity. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The modifier words "not normally" do not exclude the content that immediately follows. I repeat: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Normal Op (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, I don't think we're likely to come to an agreement on this, so BLPN might be your best bet for a resolution and consensus in a few days, as I don't think many people have this page on watch. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:EW

@Jaredhicks27, we are now in WP:EW territory, and the WP-solution to that is to use the article talk page. Why does inserting a in the middle of cited quote like you do here [2] (not the only time you did that) make sense to you? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not in the middle of a quote; that's after a period ending the statement by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, and right before the statement by the American Verterinary Society of Animal Behavior. Both independent statements from independent organizations.

Go ahead, warn me, ban me, I don't care. I made the mistake of logging into Wikipedia today. I'll send off a letter to the office of Jimmy Wales, perhaps certified, with all this info, and I'll wash my hands of Wikipedia editing. You guys are the ones in the wrong, though. Jaredhicks27 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Check the source. The is absolutely in the middle of a quote. It's strange that you don't see that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If it makes things clearer, WP is saying that R. Scott Nolen said whatever. Which is supported by the source. There is no general demand for sources to show their sources. If you have a WP:RS that disagrees with him, that may be possible to include as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping @EvergreenFir, if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

An unnecessary argument easily avoided by simply citing the source, which I just did. We may not like having to cite every single sentence in an article, but when it's challenged, citing the source is a far cry better than getting into trouble for EW. Atsme 💬 📧 13:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Atsme Why, in the name of the WP-gods, does it make sense to insert an extra cite in the middle of the quote, instead of sticking with the traditional place at the end of the quote?[3] It looks ridiculous, what am I missing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, per User_talk:Jaredhicks27, that wasn't Jaredhicks27's problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I hear ya...but I've long since learned (for peace of mind) that it's much easier to simply cite it. The user who challenged the material appears to have an intense focus on this particular article. They established an account, made a few edits here and there, and then zeroed in on this article which is just an observation. Ironically, I initially joined Project Dogs thinking it was a safer place to edit than say, AP2. Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are levels in hell and all that. And it's an improvement compared to the cn, I'll give you that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The tone of this article is POV

• The statement, The organization has been criticized of publishing misleading or inaccurate information, is an overstatement compared to the source, [4], which says DogsBite.org's claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, for example, says identifying a dog's breed accurately is difficult, even for professionals, and visual recognition is known to not always be reliable.
• The article claims that, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and other organizations[who?] have published positions opposing breed-specific legislation (BSL), but neglects to mention that breed specific legislative is quite common in other countries outside of the United States. For example, Iceland ([5], [6]), the UK [7], Taiwan [8], Turkey [9], Australia [10], New Zealand [11], France [12], Germany [13], Portugal [14], etc. BSL seems to be controversial mainly in the United States, but this article treats BSL supporters like some kind of weird Flat Earther thing.
• Includes a mocking and ambiguous quote from Bronwen Dickey, accuses several organizations of being "co-opted by the 'pit bull lobby', a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters." Who are these unidentified "supporters of the site" Dickey is attacking here, are they the same as Dogsbite.org, if they exist does Dogsbite.org have some kind of editorial responsibility for things that Dickey believes they imply, and isn't this a straw man argument?
• Caroline Coile, who, unlike Dickey, appears to have actual dog-related qualifications, kennel club experience, a relevant Ph.D., and a publishing history about dogs other than pitbulls, wrote that pit bulls do have a lobby in her book, Pit Bulls for Dummies, naming pro-pit organizations such as the National Canine Research Council that she says fund pro-pitbull research.
• As for "science whores," a recent peer reviewed paper [15] in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery noted that there is a high risk that the pit bull/BSL debate is being influenced by undisclosed financial contributions. Dark money influencing science is not unknown or unthinkable.
• The American Veterinary Medical Association has its opinions, but there other viewpoints on breed specific risks that are being published in medical journals, and that are being promulgated by state regulators outside of the US. Since we're talking about human injury, it could even be argued that the views of doctors should carry more weight than the opinions of veterinarians. Only a couple of selected veterinary viewpoints from the United States are recognized in this article, as if this is the only professional viewpoint that exists on pit bulls and BSL. Geogene (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have questions about the quote used, "She refers to them as 'science whores,' which alone is enough to discredit her claims." I see it has been added/deleted at least once from the article.

  1. This is a direct quote from the Psychology Today source. If it is to be included in this article, it should be cited as a direct quote, not a standard reference.

  2. The way the quote is used in the article is unclear. "She" could be referring to the book author, or the author of dogsbite.

  3. Is this really relevant for this article page? Using the term "science whores" is certainly not appropriate, but I don't think that one usage is enough to jump to conclusions on refuting claims, and sounds akin to tone policing.

  We also quote from Dickey where she says dogsbite is "co-opted by the 'pit bull lobby', a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters." Does the book go into details beyond this initial accusation? Do we have other sources that go into this? The whole "shady cabal" thing is weird phrasing. PartyParrot42 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've downloaded a full-text copy of Dickey's book, and I found her reference to "science whore"

  "According to DogsBite.org, these groups have been co-oped by the 'pit bull lobby,' a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters. The site is also littered with childish ad hominems like 'pit nutter' and 'science whore,' a term used to describe the veterinarians and behaviorists who insist that there is no scientific basis for breed bans."

  Was it originally on Dogsbite.org and then removed? I've done a search of the dogsbite site and looked at the page Dickey references, but I can't find it anywhere. All I can find is other sources that are quoting Dickey's book directly. I see we also cite Semyonova, but that site is offline and doesn't appear to be cached anywhere. PartyParrot42 (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)