Talk:Breed-specific legislation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) I've read quite a few research articles and opinion pieces from all sides of the BSL debate. This article presents only the arguments and research associated with one side--that of pit bull owners, dog owner associations and the Humane Society--yet appears to present them as fact. Not well balanced at all. |
|||
[edit] "bully"-type dogs and "Nanny Dogs"
Should the fact that Helen Keller owned two pit-bulls, the USMC uses pit-bulls as their "emblematic" dog because of the courageness and loyalty, and the fact that pit-bulls used to be called "nanny-dogs" because of their intelligence and gentleness with children also be mentioned to offset the 'dangerous dog' accusations? NDCompuGeek 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- This material would be more appropriate in the article on pit bulls, wouldn't it? This article is trying to be one about legislation aimed at (specific) breeds in general. Keesiewonder 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- aah - Thanks 8^) .... NDCompuGeek 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
Each of the examples at the top of this article should have a citation with it. Keesiewonder 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with this article...
The problem with this article is that some people have a very difficult time remaining objective and stating both sides of the BSL debate. I think that any statement that cannot be verified should be removed. I searched high and low for references to Italy's dog ban and could not find anything. That doesn't mean its not true, but it suggests that it might not be. This article, as much as any, needs thorough citations and objective analysis - NOT just rantings and angry editings from passionate pit bull owners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eshedges (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
yah....this is far from neutral. For example this:
- these laws appear to have only two outcomes ... the consequent grievous harm to property and liberty that flows from such wholesale compromise of procedural and substantive due process rights
Note that this quote comes from a legal brief (as noted) but the legal brief's job is to argue a certain position--not to be neutral. So we are by definition quoting a biased source without presenting the other side. Yet this one-side statement is presented as one of the only two outcomes of these laws. Ughhh... not Wikipedia's finest here. --67.166.97.61 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
