Talk:Monkey-baiting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Deletion tag
I have removed the deletion tag. This article is factually correct and is part of the Bait (dogs) wikiproject.
| Bait |
| Badger-baiting | Bear-baiting | Bull-baiting | Dog fighting | Hog-baiting | Human-baiting | Lion-baiting | Monkey-baiting | Rat-baiting |
Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean up tag
Hello, nice to see new editors at Wikipedia. What do you feel is wrong with the Monkey-baiting article. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- The quoted description of two fights and the discussion of the fighting styles of monkeys is not relevant. The history of monkey baiting and the current status of such are. There is lots of the first, and none of the second. The article reads less like an article on monkey baiting and more like a description of monkey baiting fights. It was worse before my minor edit. Hpuppet - «Talk» 15:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the previous statement, it is a style one and threrefore a point of view one. the description of one (or two) occurence serves illustrative purposes, which many encylopaedia do, and seems to me conform to te wikipedia code. --GeeeFlat 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Monkey-baiting is a rarely discussed topic in any books or websites see here [1] therefore, the maximum information that can be brought forward, which provide citations, knowledge and understanding of what this topic is about would be considered relevant to the article. May I enquire what books, magazines or other sources you are using to support your requested edits? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with this statement as well. Your view on the "tone" is stylistic, and therefore personal. I however agree with that the sources shoud be veriufyable. I can;t beleive this article has been once nominated for deletion. and i don't believe it should be completely re-written either. there is some good body/content material to be retained there. let's save wthe wikipedai forces for articles that actually need re-writing. --GeeeFlat 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- User:Hpuppet identified as a sockpuppet removing "Clean Up Tag" SirIsaacBrock 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hoax
It is not a hoax you can pull the books in the reference section and read about it yourself. Until then I am removing the tag. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- No prob, don't want to rain on your fun. How long do you think you can keep it up on Wikipedia before it gets ID'd? Morton devonshire 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please feel free to look up the references in the books noted at Further Reading section of the article, thank you SirIsaacBrock
[edit] "Conclusion" section
With these descriptions of 'Dogs versus Monkeys', we see that the higher intellect combined with a healthy instinct and fighting experience made the monkey into an extraordinarily dangerous opponent for the fighting dog.
It is amazing how many owners would send their dogs to almost certain death.
This strikes me as unwiki. The final statement connotes a personal opinion - a POV. I personally do not find it "amazing" that people would committ sporting dogs to violence and injury for the sake of making money. The first sentence/paragraph merely sums up the article, which is what the introductory paragraph is for. I do not believe the omission of the section constitutes vandalism. - JustSomeKid 21:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your deletion of the last sentence on your second edit is a reasonable compromise to me. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 17:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Hpuppet User:Hipocrite User:Whomp User:64.95.38.193
These are all the same person, some months ago this person agreed to stop editing at Wikipedia and no further action was taken. Hipocrite (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is posting again and vandalised the Monkey-baiting article. Would you please "Block" all four of these accounts to stop this nonsense. Thank you 70.51.198.36 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Let's fix the article, then.
It seems to me that with the indefinite block of the troublesome user who had previously disrupted this article, substantial progress could be made to make it encyclopedic. Tevildo, you have reverted in text that I find to be wholy innapropriate origional research ("The monkey proved to be a formidable opponent for the canine warrior; owners and handlers of fighting dogs frequently underestimated the monkey's abilities. The monkey's intelligence, dexterity, unorthodox fighting style and gameness proved to be overwhelming for many canine opponents.") and long rambling stories about individual, not notable fights between monkeys and dogs. Is there any way you could add context about the sport and get rid of the trivia? I have removed the obvious OR, but the article needs help. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How do you know if you can/should edit
[ My apologies if this is the wrong area to ask .... ]
I found the article quite interesting, however it was clearly (to me at least) written in a ... somewhat non-impartial fasion.
If one were to take the initiative to rewrite the article, how do they know wether or not they've done a satisfactory job?
Do you simply edit the entire article and put your new rewrite up ... or do you submit it for approval first?
I've seen plenty of spots where I could possibly be of aid - however I'd certainly like to go about doing things right.
--Kyanwan 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You might like to try;
for some simple guidelines. :]
Happy Wiki-ing. Shaybear 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
