→Other things that need attention on the page: Response to PearlSt82 re generalizations and conflicts of interest |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
:::No. Dogsbite.org has been widely criticized by [[WP:RS]], which is clear by the actual sources used in this article. Dogsbite.org's data tracking has been described by [[WP:RS]] as being unreliable, their conclusions are completely opposed to scientific consensus in this area, and they attack the scientific community with comments like "sciences whores". [[User:PearlSt82|PearlSt82]] ([[User talk:PearlSt82|talk]]) 07:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
:::No. Dogsbite.org has been widely criticized by [[WP:RS]], which is clear by the actual sources used in this article. Dogsbite.org's data tracking has been described by [[WP:RS]] as being unreliable, their conclusions are completely opposed to scientific consensus in this area, and they attack the scientific community with comments like "sciences whores". [[User:PearlSt82|PearlSt82]] ([[User talk:PearlSt82|talk]]) 07:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::@[[User:PearlSt82|PearlSt82]]: Even if it ''were'' clear to an average reader that such conclusions could be made, it violates [[WP:NOR]] for you to write any of your [[Logical consequence|conclusions]]. You cannot state a [[generalization]] where no such pronouncement exists in a [[WP:RS]] (that has the ability and skill to make such a conclusion and which is ''not'' simply an opinion). Just because some organization holds a position that "BSL is hogwash" doesn't mean that pro-BSL people and organzitions are "unscientific" or "anti-pitbull" or any of a number of hateful [[generalization|generalized]] epithets you've painted on DogsBite.org. To conclude such associations is a massive leap with a healthy imagination. As for "science whore", it was coined by animal behaviorist and author Alexandra Semyonova, not Colleen Lynn, and was applied (nine years ago!) to a small subset of unethical authors who failed to disclose their [[Conflicts of interest in academic publishing|conflicts of interest]]. [[User:Nomopbs|Nomopbs]] ([[User talk:Nomopbs|talk]]) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
::::@[[User:PearlSt82|PearlSt82]]: Even if it ''were'' clear to an average reader that such conclusions could be made, it violates [[WP:NOR]] for you to write any of your [[Logical consequence|conclusions]]. You cannot state a [[generalization]] where no such pronouncement exists in a [[WP:RS]] (that has the ability and skill to make such a conclusion and which is ''not'' simply an opinion). Just because some organization holds a position that "BSL is hogwash" doesn't mean that pro-BSL people and organzitions are "unscientific" or "anti-pitbull" or any of a number of hateful [[generalization|generalized]] epithets you've painted on DogsBite.org. To conclude such associations is a massive leap with a healthy imagination. As for "science whore", it was coined by animal behaviorist and author Alexandra Semyonova, not Colleen Lynn, and was applied (nine years ago!) to a small subset of unethical authors who failed to disclose their [[Conflicts of interest in academic publishing|conflicts of interest]]. [[User:Nomopbs|Nomopbs]] ([[User talk:Nomopbs|talk]]) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::I haven't included any epithets about dogsbite.org. Every sentence in this article is neutral language as supported used by reliable sources. If you disagree, point out the sentence and the source and propose alternate wording. Regarding "science whores", no claim is made that Lynn came up with the term. The article, which again, is supported by RS, states that dogsbite.org the organization, has been criticized for using the term. [https://maultalk.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/science-whores/ The term] is still up on their website, which I might note has a large banner up at the top that says "The Maul Talk manual is endorsed by dogsbite.org". [[User:PearlSt82|PearlSt82]] ([[User talk:PearlSt82|talk]]) 01:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===What is DogsBite.org (something to compare against the current article)=== |
===What is DogsBite.org (something to compare against the current article)=== |
Revision as of 01:25, 26 February 2019
Blogging Start‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
United States Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Recommended for Speedy Deletion-G10
The Dogsbite.org article is a criticism article and was created for the purpose of disparaging the website dogsbite.org and harassing/defaming the current founder Colleen Lynn, who is a living person.
See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion-G10 Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose
See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Please do not add content or create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomopbs (talk • contribs) 02:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not an attack page. Reverted CSD tagging
This is not an attack site. I've reverted your CSD tag. This article has reliable sourcing. Maile66 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Further explanations for edits
- I removed the notation of "Canada" since none of the citations mention DogsBite.org operating in Canada or with Canada data. Searching in DogsBite.org for "Canada" gets you similar results. Googling "canada dogsbite.org" gets no info about DogsBite.org involving itself with Canada dog bites. On the flip side, there are numerous articles about Canada BSL and related topics that mention DogsBite.org or link to their pages.
Nomopbs (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I removed citation[1] as irrelevant. The document was obviously a response to some other third party about an obscure subject. If you wish to include such information, you've got to tie it together somehow. See Wikipedia:Relevant links.
Nomopbs (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I removed the citation[2] because it violates so many of Wikipedia editor policies. The information in the article is wrong; the author spells Colleen's name wrong and the organization's name wrong (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). The article is opinion, not journalism; the article is an opinion piece written by someone who only writes opinion pieces[3] (see WP:NPOV). The article is not relevant to Dogsbite.org; the 1,500 word article only mentions DogsBite.org once, briefly, as a lead-in for the author's next point (see WP:REL and WP:PSTS). If one needs a citation at that point on the page, one could just as well use the AVMA citation already used (see WP:TOOMANYREFS). In fact, the vice.com citation appears to have been put there solely to introduce yet another "y'all should like pit bulls" article that has nothing to do with the topic of Dogsbite.org (see WP:NOR).
Nomopbs (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I removed the sentence "Huffington Post criticized Dogsbite.org for statistician collection and that the credentials of the people that are affiliated with the website such as Merritt Clifton are neither statisticans or "dog experts"."[4] because the cited article says no such thing. The article denigrates Mr. Clifton. Mr. Clifton does not work for or with DogsBite.org, and the article never said Clifton and DogsBite were related in any way. The article also doesn't mention "dog experts" at all. Violates WP:NOR.
Nomopbs (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- The citation re Radio-Canada cannot be verified by English readers. Follow Wikipedia policies for translation of Non-English sources, Wikipedia:RSUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomopbs (talk • contribs) 05:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Removed sentence which was a false conclusion on what the citation actually said. See WP:NOR. Sentence was: "The AVMA criticized the collection of Dogsbite.org for not accurately collecting data as dog bite victims sometimes miss identify the dog or the breed of dog is not accurate.[ref: AVMA]" Citation actually 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."
Nomopbs (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I removed a citation. You're going to get a lot of opinions on a subject as contentious as pit bulls. But you cannot use as a "reliable source" an angry letter to the editor from some nobody, complaining about some previous article. Of course there are "opinions" out there, but that doesn't make everyone's opinion worthy of being a citation in Wikipedia. Please read and understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomopbs (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I removed the buzzfeed citation. It's a very interesting read but it doesn't say anything in it to support a single sentence on the Dogsbite.org page.[6] See MOS:OVERLINK, Wikipedia:Citation overkill and WP:CITESPAM.
Nomopbs (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Animal_Services/Response_8_14.pdf
- ^ "How Scared Should I Be of Pit Bulls?". Vice.com. 19 November 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2018.
- ^ https://www.vice.com/en_us/contributor/mike-pearl
- ^ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/merritt-clifton-pit-bulls_b_5866176.html
- ^ http://www.lowellsun.com/opinion/ci_27681006/dont-breed-ignorance-reject-dogsbite-orgs-pit-bull
- ^ "Inside The Most Vicious Conflict On The Internet". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 4 February 2019.
To prevent an edit war
@Nomopbs: These are quotes directly from the Radio Canada article. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/802064/donnes-non-scientifiques-anti-pitbulls
Le site DogsBite.org, de son côté, publie régulièrement les chiffres d'Animals 24-7, en plus de tenir sa propre liste d'incidents. La fondatrice de DogsBite.org, Colleen Lynn, elle-même une victime de morsure, explique toutefois que son site ne prétend pas recenser toutes les morsures graves de chiens, mais qu'il recense la majorité des décès. Elle indique aussi que son site ne se base pas uniquement sur les médias, mais puise aussi ses données dans d'autres sources, comme des rapports de police, et que son site publie parfois des cas qui n'ont pas été mentionnés dans les médias.
Un autre cas cité sur le site DogsBite.org concerne un homme de 57 ans du Tennessee, James Chapple, qui a été gravement blessé aux mains par des pitbulls, en 2007. Quatre mois plus tard, il est mort des suites d'une athérosclérose et de problèmes d'alcoolisme. Malgré tout, DogsBite.org le comptabilise comme un décès causé par des pitbulls.
En opposition avec la communauté scientifique
Les deux groupes se montrent très critiques envers les experts scientifiques. Le site DogsBite.org va même jusqu'à utiliser le terme « pute scientifique » (« science whore ») pour qualifier certains experts. La fondatrice du site, Colleen Lynn, se défend en disant que ce terme ne vient pas d'elle et qu'il n'a été utilisé qu'à trois reprises depuis la création du site en 2007.
De plus, contrairement aux études publiées dans des revues scientifiques, les statistiques de ces groupes ne sont pas vérifiées par des experts indépendants afin d'en assurer la validité.
La chercheuse en médecine vétérinaire Karen Overall, de l'Université de Pennsylvanie, a analysé toutes les études de statistiques de morsures de chiens publiées entre 1950 et 2000 à travers le monde. Ses recherches montrent que les races de chiens responsables du plus grand nombre d'attaques varient en fonction de l'année et de la région étudiée.
Elle se montre critique envers la méthodologie employée par les groupes qui se basent principalement sur les histoires parues dans les médias. « Les rapports par les médias et par la police sont presque toujours incomplets, dit-elle, et il n'y a aucune confirmation indépendante de la race impliquée. Ces publications utilisent ces rapports comme s'ils étaient infaillibles.
English translation
DogsBite.org, for its part, regularly publishes the figures of Animals 24-7, in addition to keeping its own list of incidents. The founder of DogsBite.org, Colleen Lynn, herself a bite victim, says that her site does not claim to list all serious dog bites, but lists the majority of deaths. She also indicates that her site is not based solely on the media, but also draws its data from other sources, such as police reports, and that its site sometimes publishes cases that have not been mentioned in the media. .
Another case cited on the DogsBite.org website is a 57-year-old man from Tennessee, James Chapple, who was severely injured by pitbulls in 2007. Four months later, he died of atherosclerosis. and problems with alcoholism. Nevertheless, DogsBite.org counts it as a death caused by pitbulls.
In opposition to the scientific community
Both groups are very critical of the scientific experts. The DogsBite.org website even goes so far as to use the term "science whore" to describe certain experts. The site's founder, Colleen Lynn, defends herself by saying that this term does not come from her and that it has only been used three times since the creation of the site in 2007.
Moreover, unlike studies published in scientific journals, the statistics of these groups are not verified by independent experts to ensure their validity.
Veterinary researcher Karen Overall of the University of Pennsylvania analyzed all dog bite statistics published between 1950 and 2000 around the world. His research shows that the breeds of dogs responsible for the greatest number of attacks vary according to the year and the region studied.
She is critical of the methodology used by the groups based mainly on stories in the media. "Reports by the media and the police are almost always incomplete," she says, "and there is no independent confirmation of the race involved. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Article lacks Neutral Point of View
The Dogsbite.org article is lacking a Neutral Point of View, as is required per Wikipedia editor guidelines. Most edits I made to correct the NPOV problem during the last six days have been vandalized or reverted. Right now it reads as an article created for the purpose of defaming and/or discrediting DogsBite.org by any means possible. In the article Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is NOT to be used for "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind" and "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." See WP:NOTADVOCACY. Also "Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be BALANCED to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view."
Therefore, I am suggesting that efforts be made to edit the article in order to comply with WP:NPOV and any of the other guidelines violated in the current version of the article, or the page be deleted based on WP:G10 violation or lack of notability. Though any wiki editor can jump into the fray, I'm specifically calling out User:Dwanyewest and User:PearlSt82 to correct the article or delete it or stay out of the way of other editors and avoid Wikipedia:Disruptive Editing. Dwanyewest created the article/page and has edited it extensively. (Oh lookie! Thirteen citations for a seven-sentence criticism article!) User:PearlSt82 has posted repeatedly the opinion that DogsBite.org is WP:FRINGE as early as 2015[1] and as late as June 2018[2] and has written and argued extensively against DogsBite.org despite the opposing consensus of other editors. This week, both users have reverted most of my attempts at bringing the article closer to NPOV.
Other things that need attention on the page
1. Adhere to biographical material on living persons. See WP:NOTSCANDAL. "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."
2. Remove or translate (use inline citation translation or footnotes), of the relevant portions of the French citation (from Radio Canada). Putting a translation on the Talk page is insufficient, as the average internet browser/reader does not know about Talk pages. See WP:VER and WP:NONENG. (Personally, I think the Radio Canada citation fails WP:RS due to being an opinion piece written by someone inexperienced in the topic and who makes no attempt at concealing her hatred for the targets of Clifton and Lynn. It makes a very poor citation. See WP:ONUS.)
3. Remove citations that add nothing to the article. There are several citations that are completely irrelevant and look like they're added as overkill spam linking. They seem to have been added solely to include more content to convince readers of one point of view (pro-pit bull and/or anti-dogsbite.org) as they contribute nothing to the article. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill, particularly WP:NOTEBOMB.
4. Clarify what seem to be editor confusions from one sentence to the next, whether they're intending "dogsbite.org" to be a website or an organization. DogsBite.org (note the capitalization pattern) is an organization that owns the website www.dogsbite.org (all URLS are lower case). So when editing the article be sure to clarify which you are referring to.
4B. The article title is spelled wrong since Wikipedia links are case-sensitive. For example, Dogsbite.org and DogsBite.org are not the same and don't link to the same place.
5. Check the truth of statements in the article. Just because someone once said something about the subject of the article, if it's no longer true, or its exaggerated to the point of lying (and you know it), then you can't use it. You can't publish anything that is untrue even if you have a citation that says otherwise. See WP:VER.
Happy editing!
Nomopbs (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Articles are to reflect what reliable source say on the subject. The vast majority of reliable sources that mention dogsbite.org are critical of them, so that is why this is a prominent part of the article. Addressing individual points, none of the material in the article violates BLP. This is also an article about the website/organization, and not Lynn herself. For the Radio Canada, see WP:COPYVIO why we can't just copy and paste text from there into articles. Its also basic news-level French, for where a Google translate is more than sufficient. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PearlSt82: It is untrue that "the vast majority of RSs than mention DogsBite.org are critical of them". In fact, the polar opposite is true. Other editors tried to enlighten you back in 2015,[1] but you didn't see their POV then and you continue on your attack of DogsBite.org today.
Nomopbs (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)- No. Dogsbite.org has been widely criticized by WP:RS, which is clear by the actual sources used in this article. Dogsbite.org's data tracking has been described by WP:RS as being unreliable, their conclusions are completely opposed to scientific consensus in this area, and they attack the scientific community with comments like "sciences whores". PearlSt82 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PearlSt82: Even if it were clear to an average reader that such conclusions could be made, it violates WP:NOR for you to write any of your conclusions. You cannot state a generalization where no such pronouncement exists in a WP:RS (that has the ability and skill to make such a conclusion and which is not simply an opinion). Just because some organization holds a position that "BSL is hogwash" doesn't mean that pro-BSL people and organzitions are "unscientific" or "anti-pitbull" or any of a number of hateful generalized epithets you've painted on DogsBite.org. To conclude such associations is a massive leap with a healthy imagination. As for "science whore", it was coined by animal behaviorist and author Alexandra Semyonova, not Colleen Lynn, and was applied (nine years ago!) to a small subset of unethical authors who failed to disclose their conflicts of interest. Nomopbs (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't included any epithets about dogsbite.org. Every sentence in this article is neutral language as supported used by reliable sources. If you disagree, point out the sentence and the source and propose alternate wording. Regarding "science whores", no claim is made that Lynn came up with the term. The article, which again, is supported by RS, states that dogsbite.org the organization, has been criticized for using the term. The term is still up on their website, which I might note has a large banner up at the top that says "The Maul Talk manual is endorsed by dogsbite.org". PearlSt82 (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PearlSt82: Even if it were clear to an average reader that such conclusions could be made, it violates WP:NOR for you to write any of your conclusions. You cannot state a generalization where no such pronouncement exists in a WP:RS (that has the ability and skill to make such a conclusion and which is not simply an opinion). Just because some organization holds a position that "BSL is hogwash" doesn't mean that pro-BSL people and organzitions are "unscientific" or "anti-pitbull" or any of a number of hateful generalized epithets you've painted on DogsBite.org. To conclude such associations is a massive leap with a healthy imagination. As for "science whore", it was coined by animal behaviorist and author Alexandra Semyonova, not Colleen Lynn, and was applied (nine years ago!) to a small subset of unethical authors who failed to disclose their conflicts of interest. Nomopbs (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- No. Dogsbite.org has been widely criticized by WP:RS, which is clear by the actual sources used in this article. Dogsbite.org's data tracking has been described by WP:RS as being unreliable, their conclusions are completely opposed to scientific consensus in this area, and they attack the scientific community with comments like "sciences whores". PearlSt82 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PearlSt82: It is untrue that "the vast majority of RSs than mention DogsBite.org are critical of them". In fact, the polar opposite is true. Other editors tried to enlighten you back in 2015,[1] but you didn't see their POV then and you continue on your attack of DogsBite.org today.
What is DogsBite.org (something to compare against the current article)
- (Not intended as a replacement for the article, but as a crash course for those wiki editors who know nothing about the topic at hand.)
DogsBite.org is an organization that tracks DOG BITE RELATED FATALITIES (DBRFs). It covers each individual death[3] with links to online news reports, posts copies of police reports and 911 recordings and animal control reports obtained through FOIA, posts photographs of the dogs, communicates with the families of victims, and generally collects every last shred of information[4] about each fatality so that one can correctly analyze statistics over a given time period.[5] Each fatality appears on the year's tally of DBRFs[6] and thus is part of "statistics" that are collected. News agencies (and victims) regularly contact[7] Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org for information. And because the vast majority of DBRFs are caused by pit bulls and pit bull mixed dogs[8] (58%-70% each year, depending on year), those defending or promoting pit bulls frequently denigrate DogsBite.org, criticise its data collection and statistics, and engage in character assassination. The website provides a lot of information about solutions for public safety, such as Breed Specific Legislation (BSL),[9] and posts information about BSL in every state, county and city in the USA (with links to their BSL statutes or ordinances online).[10] It is an information website.
Nomopbs (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose to this text replacing the current body of the article. Articles should reflect what reliable sources say about the subject, not self-serving material the subject says about themselves. PearlSt82 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with PearlSt82. Nomopbs, every cite in your text is to the website itself. Per WP:s way of thinking, what a subject says of itself should have somewhere between none and very little effect on the article. That said, an article where the only section is "critisism" is not ideal. Short as it is, maybe it should just be a block of text without TOC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PearlSt82 and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I guess I wasn't clear. The above paragraph is not a proposed rendition for the article. It is a "crash course" in "What is DogsBite.org" for wiki editors who may join in the discussion of this NPOV dispute yet know nothing about the organization about which it is referring (therefore the links to the dogsbite.org website are appropriate). DogsBite.org is not notable (under Wikipedia guidelines for Notability) and the average person has never heard of it and probably never will (neither good nor bad). Nomopbs (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Then I suggest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Who is PearlSt82 with regards this topic
User:PearlSt82's history of edits shows a defense of pit bull reputation and an intolerance of opposing viewpoints. Their edit history of the pit bull article looks like they have declared ownership of that article. (See PearlSt82's reverts in the edit history,[11] the lack of NPOV in that article, and the numerous Talk page discussions about people's inability to edit that page without their work getting summarily reverted.) Since DogsBite.org tracks fatalities by dog and the majority of those were caused by pit bulls, PearlSt82 probably feels compelled to discredit DogsBite.org and harass it whenever and wherever possible.
Nomopbs (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
PearlSt82's recorded history on the topic of DogsBite.org
User:PearlSt82 was taken to task in a 2015 Reliable Source discussion[1] during which PearlSt82 repeatedly and vehemently opposed any favorable reference to DogsBite.org and where Wikipedia editor Eppefleche wrote: "[Y]our POV branding of the organization [DogsBite.org], which is quoted by these RSs, as a "fringe source" is belied by the fact that the organization's statements are reported, in just the past two years, by among others: ABC, CBS, NBC, the Associated Press, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, Time, the Seattle Times, the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Vancouver Sun." User:Epeefleche 21 April 2015
No doubt Eppefleche did an internet search at that time to come up with that list of reliable sources quoting or mentioning DogsBite.org. Four years later, you can do the same sort of research and see similar results. So PearlSt82's assertion today (see above) that "The vast majority of reliable sources that mention dogsbite.org are critical of them" is false and shows no change in POV since 2015 and no change in Wikipedia editor behavior on this topic.
A scolding of PearlSt82 by Eppefleche: "If you have a contradictory RS-supported view that you wish to add to the article, feel free to do it. But please stop deleting this sentence (and similar sentences, as you -- including in this massive deletion[12] -- and Lovepitbullsforever have been doing recently), claiming "not RS." Epeefleche 20 April 2015
Oh what a massive deletion of material someone had added to ensure a NPOV... but PearlSt82 deleted it all! [12]
And at the end of the very long discussion, Epeeflech closes with: "I agree with the statements of nearly all of the above editors; excluding PearlSt82, whose above views have been non-consensus. The Huffington Post/AP are indeed RS refs for the statement set forth at the outset of this thread. The reasons given [by PearlSt82] for removing the statement -- assertions of "poor source," "Not a good source," not a "high quality source," "low quality source," "not RS", "pubmed sourced required," and "academic source required" are unfounded non-consensus views." Epeefleche 22 April 2015
What a waste of time (five days) and the efforts of numerous wiki editors for a discussion about PearlSt82's refusal to allow someone to use a single sentence and its citation to a Huffington Post article that favorably mentioned DogsBite.org... because it favorably mentioned DogsBite.org. And here we are four years later, back at the same starting line. PearlSt82 is recorded to have used the same arguments against using a reference mentioning DogsBite.org in 2018.[2][13] And though Dwanyewest created the article for DogsBite.org, PearlSt82 has jumped on, added to it, and reverted NPOV edits. PearlSt82 and Dwanyewest are not the only wiki editors who engage in this pro-pit bull advocacy on Wikipedia, and frankly I don't care what they do on some other pages, but in this case I won't let the bullying continue in the form of disruptive editing to promote their advocacy.
Nomopbs (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what this long WP:BATTLEGROUND screed does towards improving this article. PearlSt82 (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Huffington_Post
- ^ a b https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&oldid=847819768
- ^ https://blog.dogsbite.org/
- ^ https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatality-citations-data-collection.php
- ^ https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fatality-report-2005-2017.php
- ^ https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2019.php
- ^ https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-what-people-say-about-colleen-lynn.php
- ^ https://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs.php
- ^ https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-bsl-faq.php
- ^ https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-state-by-state.php
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&action=history
- ^ a b https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&diff=prev&oldid=657369386
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&diff=prev&oldid=847819768
Taken it to Administration noticeboard
I taken this dispute to be sorted once and for all at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I will not participate in any further editing on this article until this dispute is resolved. I am doing it so I am not accused by the likes of User:Nomopbs of vandalizing the article or imposing any bias. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)