Talk:DogsBite.org/Archive 1

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 Criteria for speedy deletion-G10 Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose

See Biographies of living persons

See Criticism

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 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 Relevant links. Nomopbs (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the citation 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 Verifiability). The article is opinion, not journalism; the article is an opinion piece written by someone who only writes opinion pieces (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"." 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, 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. — 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. See MOS:OVERLINK, Citation overkill and WP:CITESPAM. Nomopbs (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @User:PearlSt82: Stop changing the article to include the words or concepts of "advocates for breed specific legislation". I don't know what your agenda is, but stop with your original research. Though the citations mention that the founder believes in BSL as a solution towards reducing incidences of dangerous dog bites and fatalities, and says the organization's website has information about BSL, there is no language or concept written anywhere that say DogsBite.org ADVOCATES for BSL. See WP:NOR. My research on the website dogsbite.org shows a plethora of "information about" BSL, but there is no promotion or active call to arms for any specific current or upcoming legislation. There are, however, numerous "reports about" past legislation and the current status of BSL in jurisdictions around the country. Advocacy requires action, which I don't see anywhere (I just see information/education), and also implies a victim or underrepresented person (people, in other words). You can't "advocate for" an idea. You CAN advocate for a person who was bitten by a dog. So I don't know why you're all over this hobby horse of yours about DogsBite.org "advocating for BSL", but stop it! Or figure out what the citations DO say, and say that instead. Nomopbs (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-bsl-faq.php "The solution is not to enforce the inadequate laws we already have, often further hindered by existing legal systems that offer insufficient routes to civil and criminal recourse. The solution is to create preventative laws that greatly reduce the risk of dangerous dog breeds, primarily pit bulls, from ever inflicting a first attack. This radically reduces grave injuries and the need for victims to endure both deficient legal processes. These are the two primary goals of breed-specific laws." - This is a clear statement of advocacy for BSL and is consistent with the site's actions. The notion that you can't advocate for an idea or legislation is absurd. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also from https://www.dogsbite.org/maryland/ - "DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims' group, submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the young mauling victim in Tracey v. Solesky, which helped move the Court of Appeals to modify Maryland common law and attach strict liability when a pit bull terrier attacks a person. This web page was designed in 2012 to help citizens and groups take action to support the high court's ruling." - Clear advocacy intended to influence legal proceedings. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an advocacy group though, right?champion the rights of victims through our research, education and advocacy." As do various reliable sources. Is this just an argument about what it advocates? #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have objections to saying the group advocates for victims (currently in text), but I can't see objections to them advocating for BSL. Either way, I've introduced a citation that is a review of the Maryland case, which extensively notes and cites Senate testimony (among other legal documents) Lynn provided in the case. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

To prevent an edit war
These are quotes directly from the Radio Canada article. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/802064/donnes-non-scientifiques-anti-pitbulls

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Formatted into two columns to make it easier to read. Nomopbs (talk) 21:57, 26 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 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 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 and as late as June 2018 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 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, 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 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)

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 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 about each fatality so that one can correctly analyze statistics over a given time period. Each fatality appears on the year's tally of DBRFs and thus is part of "statistics" that are collected. News agencies (and victims) regularly contact Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org for information. And because the vast majority of DBRFs are caused by pit bulls and pit bull mixed dogs (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), and posts information about BSL in every state, county and city in the USA (with links to their BSL statutes or ordinances online). 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)
 * Support removal of "criticism" header and just have the article be the two paragraphs. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:21, 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 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, 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 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 -- 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!

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. 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)

Taken it to Administration noticeboard
I taken this dispute to be sorted once and for all at 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)

Revert to criticism
The recent edits to the criticism are extremely problematic, for the following reasons:


 * unexplained removal of sourced AVMA content that says that groups dispute their statistics as misleading and inaccurate
 * contradictory to edit summary, financial ties to dogfighting clearly mentioned in the Dickey book
 * additional sources added trying to explain the science whores quote is WP:OR - Dickey's comments seem consistent with the science whores post and we don't editorialize sources
 * unsourced background and WP:SYNTH material added to Radio Canada section
 * additional sources added to Chapple attack do not mention dogsbite.org and are pure WP:SYNTH

I've reverted to the previous version for these reasons. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply to PearlSt82

 * If you are referring to the AVMA article text 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.", and you think that translates to "The website has been accused of using unreliable methods to collect dog bite data", then Mr. PearlSt82 THAT is WP:SYNTH and violates WP:NOR. Uneplained removal? You didn't notice "Made criticism section more clear as to what is being criticized"?
 * Yes, the AVMA says that DBO's statistics are disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading. I do support "The website has been accused of using unreliable methods to collect dog bite data" as text that accurately summarizes this information. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @PearlSt82: Ah, but the AVMA reference does not say that. Use in-line citation methods or otherwise attribute who said what. Because you are making a huge WP:SYNTH leap with your generalizations. Nomopbs (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The AVMA source 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.". Point #1: "disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading". Point #2 "identifying a dog breed accurately is difficult... is known not always be reliable." PearlSt82 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No mention of "financial ties to dogfighting" was found, in Dickey's book or on the internet. Citation needed or quotes or something. You can't just pull it out of thin air.
 * From pages 186-87 of the Dickey book: ""For one, DogsBite.org contradicts everything put forth by the groups most qualified to speak about animal science, animal behavior, and dog bite epidemiology: the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American COllege of Veterinary Behaviorists, the Animal Behavior Society, the National Animal Care and Control Association, the Association of Professioanl Dog Trainers, and almost ever yother animal welfare orgnaization in the country other than PETA. According to DogsBite.org, these groups have been co-opted by "the pit bull lobby", a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters.""PearlSt82 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @PearlSt82: LOL. Your wording was ambiguous. I read your sentence as Dickey was accusing DogsBite.org of having financial ties to dogfighting, and I didn't find any of that in Dickey's book citation. Ambiguous sentences lead to misunderstandings by the readers. (Ok, I obtained a copy of Dickey's book... from the library.) Nomopbs (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @PearlSt82: Your citation is looking more and more like an opinion piece full of generalizations, half-truths, and false attributions. Dickey's phrase "that supporters of the site imply" means two things, (a) DogsBite.org or Lynn didn't say it,and (b) there was an implication. But you have changed this to say "The website ... has been criticized for [acts against] [list of nice people], accusing them of being paid by dogfighting groups." You don't see how this is not what Dickey said? Dickey was very sly in how she wrote it; after all, you were fooled by her language. But she was careful enough not to say DogsBite.org/Lynn said it. You should be as careful, or more so. Nomopbs (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How could you have possibly read that sentence as Dickey accusing Dogsbite.org of having financial ties to dogfighting? The sentence in the article is "has been criticized for their labeling of academic and professional veterinary and animal behavior associations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, as "science whores", accusing them of being paid by dogfighting groups to release false scientific reports and analysis" which is an accurate summary of the Dickey text. We report what RS say. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Pointing out that those who accuse Lynn of using "science whore" when in fact it was someone else is false attribution. Just because some RS says something - which you find to be untrue - means you shouldn't use it in an encyclopedia. Because it's false.
 * Again, it is said that dogsbite.org use the term, not Lynn personally. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @PearlSt82: LOL. Too ambiguous. If the reference to "science whore" wasn't written by Lynn and was merely posted 9-years ago by someone else on a blog that is now an archive and not active, you can't say "DogsBite.org said it". That's a leap and is poor journalism. If that's the case, then every scandalous comment posted on every message board everywhere would reflect personally on the founder or administrator of said message board or blog. I looked at the Maul Talk Manual and it's a collection of "terms and phrases". Right up there at the top it says it is "owned and authored by members of our community" and "A guide to understanding the language of pit bull owners and advocates." Nomopbs (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @PearlSt82: Also, people say things, not websites. You seem to want to consider the article about a website (dogsbite.org) sometimes, and about a person (Lynn) at other times, and about an organization (DogsBite.org) some times. Just like in law, you can only accuse people of committing acts, not objects. You cannot accuse a website. And it has long been established in case law that what is posted on someone else's website or blog or message board does not transfer liability to the owner (person or organization) that owns said website. Nomopbs (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what the sources say. We report what the sources say. Period. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Re Radio Canada: You seem to like using generalizations instead of specifics. WHAT was unsourced and what do you consider SYNTH? If you're referring to "In 2016 when Montreal was considering a pit bull ban and tensions were high" then you can either delete that lead-in or I have an actual reference for you (from Radio Canada itself).
 * Yes, I'm referring to "In 2016 when Montreal was considering a pit bull ban and tensions were high"PearlSt82 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @PearlSt82: I don't believe you, because if your only objection was to the lead-in, you might have deleted the lead-in or tagged it with citation needed, but instead you deleted the entire paragraph (6 new sentences and three new citations). Your actions clearly show you're not interested in NPOV, you're only interested in promotion one POV. Nomopbs (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So now you're accusing the RS/citation of WP:SYNTH? That policy is for wiki editors' writings, not the writings of cited sources. And of course the cited source doesn't mention DogsBite.org because the article wasn't about DogsBite.org, it was about the mauling and death of Mr. Chapple. PearlSt82, you previously objected to, and removed, a citation I had included to a CDC page on the grounds it doesn't mention DogsBite.org, when in fact I was using the reference to indicate the language "Dog bite related fatalities" and it's abbreviation. You seem to have a skewed idea of what "citation" is supposed to mean in Wikipedia. It doesn't mean 'supports my POV about the target of the article.' Nomopbs (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Every source in this article needs to mention dogsbite.org directly.PearlSt82 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @PearlSt82: LOL, that's amusingly wrong. What Wikipedia guideline do you think says that? Nomopbs (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SYNTH, specifically the last example regarding Jones and Harvard. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources etc
We need to use Bronwen Dickey's book separately, attributing her statements. I can't read it all on Google, but I can see: "Lynn has no professional credentials in statistics, epidemiology, or animal behavior; neither do the sources she relies on most frequently. Before her bite injury, Lynn maintained the fortune-telling Web site Divine Lady.com, on which she referred to herself as “Divine Lady, Beholder of the Soul.” In 2011, she self-published the third edition of Divine Lady's Guide to the Runes. (The original Divine Lady Web site now redirects to RuneCast.com, owned and operated by Lynn Media Group.)" "The site is also littered with childish ad hominems like “pit nutter” (an epithet for pit bull owners) and “science whore,” a term used to describe the veterinarians and behav-iorists who insist that there is no scientific basis for breed bans. Worse, commenters are allowed to express violent fantasies about killing dogs (“Pit Bulls should be used for target practice,” one wrote in 2008). In its sidebar, DogsBite.org links to blogs filled with gratuitous photographs of pit bulls that have been shot or stabbed under headings such as “Fuck Pit Bulls and the Faggots Who Own Pit Bulls.”" "Most of the information on DogsBite.org comes from one self-published paper on “dog attack deaths and mannings” by a man named Merritt Clifton, the former editor of the Animal People newsletter who runs an animal rights news blog called Animals 24-7 and claims to have been bitten by a pit bull in 1982. Because Clifton’s paper has been cited both in the mainstream press and in several court cases as evidence of the rational basis for breed-specific legislation, a thorough examination of it is necessary. Like Lynn, Clifton possesses no relevant credentials. His supporters call him an “award-winning journalist,” but he readily admits that his research methods are limited to scanning media reports and classified ads rather than personally speaking with investigators or reviewing primary source documents. The award he received in 2010 was presented to him by the administrators of an infectious-disease-tracking Listserv, not a journalistic organization."
 * I agree Dickey should be broken out separately for the criticisms not made elsewhere. "Science whore" is also mentioned by the Radio Canada source. Would it be appropriate to include material on Lynn's background as a fortune teller and that she has been noted to have no professional credentials in statistics, epidemiology, or animal behavior? Or would that be straying too far from the subject of DBO as an organization, and into Lynn as a person? PearlSt82 (talk)

There's more on Clifton here.

Her influence on Montreal seems relevant. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to History section
The history section now reads in an unencyclopedic tone and has material not directly related to DBO. Propose change to the following text: "After being injured in a pit bull attack while jogging on June 17th, 2007,(avma source) Colleen Lynn anonymously founded DogsBite.org in October 2007. Shortly after, her identity was disclosed and she began receiving harassing emails, and was threatened by a lawsuit. Numerous anti-breed specific legislation advocates set up blogs and websites posting theories attempting to cast doubt on Lynn.(buzzfeed source)". Since this is only condensed to three sentences, I also propose it be merged into the first paragraph and not split off as separate section. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to article
@Nomopbs, talk page consensus needs to be reached before inserting these changes. Previous discussion here has shown several contended points, which need to be worked out here. An attempt to resolve the dispute was posted to WP:AN, but doesn't seem like the appropriate venue, so lets see if we can't get consensus before it needs to go to WP:THIRDOPINION, as so far it seems like its going to be an unresolvable dispute between two editors.

In these three diffs:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885898944&oldid=885895843
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885895843&oldid=885891398
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885891398&oldid=885582225

I am contesting the following changes:


 * 1) Removal of the link to Fatal dog attacks in the United States in the article body, substituting it for a link in "Related topics". This page can directly be tied to the article's prose, and should be linked there
 * 2) Removal of statement saying the organization advocates for Breed-specific legislation. This is a clear part of their activities, justified by inclusion by the site's own words, as well as the two sources discussing the MD Tracey v Solesky case, where dogsbite.org was heavily involved, and the now-removed austintx.gov, where dogsbite.org was involved in a local public hearing
 * 3) Removal of aforementioned austintx.gov source, of which several documents to and from DBO are listed on their website, this speaks to DBO's lobbying activities for breed-specific ordinance changes, here addressing no-kill shelters. This source needs to be reinstated
 * 4) Unrelated information about the Chapple attack needs to be removed per WP:SYNTH. This is an article about dogsbite.org, and all sources and statements need to address dogsbite.org directly.

In addition, I am still contesting the changes to the History section noted in the talk page section above. If other editors are here from the AFD discussion or the AN post, I'd certainly like to hear their comments, but if we can't resolve this in a week, it might be time for WP:THIRDOPINION. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Final resolution
PearlSt82 (talk) and Nomopbs (talk) are either willing to settle some sort of resolution through WP:Thirdopinion to resolve the dispute about the article? Dwanyewest (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially if the above discussion has satisfied the length and amount of discussion required to be posted there. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

PearlSt82 (talk) and Nomopbs (talk) if either of you are interested I have taken the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I can provide input there if that is the appropriate space for it. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest & PearlSt82: The USA just had another "death by the family pet pit bull" yesterday, the fifth |"death by dog" and the second "death by pit bull" in the 16 days since I discovered your Wikipedia DogsBite.org attack article, and you care about a dispute resolution over whether or not you're allowed to continue discrediting DogsBite.org on Wikipedia? We've had 11 fatalities this year and over 50% are by pit bulls or pit mixes. The only agency reporting this fact to the general public is DogsBite.org. The only people attacking DogsBite.org are the pit bull advocates who want to rebrand their fighting heritage dogs as "pets". You are pushing your own WP:POV, not a WP:NPOV, in violation of Wikipedia editor guidelines. If I'm to be the only defender of DogsBite.org on Wikipedia, then so be it. But I won't allow you two to continue violating NPOV without speaking up. It's been made perfectly clear to me that "discussing" matters with PearlSt82 leads nowhere. Just read this Talk page. —Nomopbs (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say. Its been made clear over and over again this is not an attack site, but a reflection of those reliable sources. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Refiled the dispute on the DRN, hopefully filed correctly and in the right place this time. Nomopbs notified on their talkpage. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC on recent changes
The above filing on WP:DRN was closed here by the auto archive bot as there was no activity after 14 days. No volunteers from there have commented on the dispute, so I'm reposting more or less as an RFC as an attempt resolve this dispute: PearlSt82 (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In these four diffs, representing the current version of the page:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885898944&oldid=885895843
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885895843&oldid=885891398
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885891398&oldid=885582225
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885237747&oldid=885236153

I am contesting the following changes:

PearlSt82 (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Removal of the link to Fatal dog attacks in the United States in the article body, substituting it for a link in "Related topics". This page can directly be tied to the article's prose, and should be linked there per WP:MOSLINK and WP:SEEALSO
 * 2) Removal of statement saying the organization advocates for Breed-specific legislation. This is a clear part of their activities, justified by inclusion by the site's own words, as well as the two sources discussing the MD Tracey v Solesky case, where dogsbite.org was heavily involved, and the now-removed austintx.gov, where dogsbite.org was involved in a local public hearing
 * 3) Removal of aforementioned austintx.gov source, of which several documents to and from DBO are listed on their website, this speaks to DBO's lobbying activities for breed-specific ordinance changes, here addressing no-kill shelters. This source needs to be reinstated
 * 4) Unrelated information about the Chapple attack needs to be removed per WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH. This is an article about dogsbite.org, and all sources and statements need to address dogsbite.org directly.
 * 5) Propose "After being injured in a pit bull attack while jogging on June 17th, 2007,(avma source) Colleen Lynn anonymously founded DogsBite.org in October 2007. Shortly after, her identity was disclosed and she began receiving harassing emails, and was threatened by a lawsuit. Numerous anti-breed specific legislation advocates set up blogs and websites posting theories attempting to cast doubt on Lynn.(buzzfeed source)". as text for "History" section as the current section reads in an unencyclopedic tone.


 * At a brief glance these seems reasonable, especially the first one, I think I did an edit myself in that direction at some point. The "This page has been added to the following lists:" seemed a little off, but it looks like they're as close as you get. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the lists, I selected media because this is a website and science because it relates to animal/veterinary matters. Its not a perfect fit, if someone wants to remove or reclassify it, I would have no objections. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, dogs = science and web-noise = media seems to be as close as possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I "worked over" the entire article (by Nomopbs)
I "worked over" the entire article, fleshing it out, locating and using citations that covered the basics of what DogsBite.org is engaged in.

I kept the history section and the bulk of the lede paragraph.

I removed the criticism section because it contained original research and violated the spirit of example cruft. In that vein, I chose to delete the section rather than reworking it, per "Any theory or phenomenon lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". I did, however, keep a mention of such contentiousness in this way:
 * On the other hand, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and other organizations have published positions opposing BSL. Opponents of DogsBite.org include "animals rights activists, no-kill advocates, pit bull owners, pit bull fans," etc., according to Joseph Bernstein of BuzzFeed News, while fighting in "the most toxic, most hopelessly partisan topics of discussion in the blathersphere."

I'm sure we can all agree that this article should be ABOUT DogsBite.org, and should not be used as a forum to discuss contentious subjects such as the pro-pitbull/anti-pitbull war or the pros and cons of breed-specific legislation. (Arguments about BSL belong in the breed-specific legislation article, not here. Pit bull arguments should go in the pit bull article.) Though I included DogsBite.org's "position" on a few items, it was to educate readers on "what is DogsBite.org", as any good encyclopedia would, and was not done as a lead-in for an argument about those "positions".

My hope is that this re-write will go a long way to helping stop the endless fighting over this article. The new version is easy to read, covers the topic in summary without being too brief, nor is it too detailed on any one point. I tried to cover the areas some of the other editors most wanted covered.
 * I covered DogsBite.org's position on BSL. (PearlSt82's objections/points #2 & #3)
 * I removed the extra link to Fatal dog attacks in the United States. (PearlSt82's objection #1)
 * The removal of the second half of the criticism section handles PearlSt82's objection #4.

Nomopbs (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

By PearlSt82

 * These are extensive changes that contain non-neutral language and the removal of sourced criticism. Please do not edit war these changes into the article before discussing and while there is still an active RFC. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

By Nomopbs

 * I left alone the first and last paragraphs (you can't complain about that) and only added the middle paragraphs. If you have complaints about THAT language (middle paragraphs), then take that up, but don't delete ALL of my work just because you don't like it. Personally, I think my work was VERY neutral-point-of-view. You don't think so, because YOU PERSONALLY HATE DOGSBITE.ORG! It's been clear from the very beginning. You made that clear back in 2015. Do you want me to bring that back up again? (Just read above in this Talk article.) If you want to re-insert the 'criticism' section, then go ahead; we can tackle that next. Nomopbs (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

By PearlSt82

 * Ok, here are the numerous problems with your edits, specifically enumerated:
 * complete removal of the sourced criticism section. This is not OR, as each sentence is sourced, and the sentences reflect the sources
 * "and an overview of breed-specific legislation within the United States" - the website doesnt provide an "overview", it advocates for a specific position
 * "The organization also provides statistics and information to news organizations" - WP:UNDUE, and also not in cited source
 * "for legal and legislative support" - they don't provide "support" like they are paralegals - again they are advocating for a specific position
 * "Currently there is no uniform reporting requirement in the United States for dog bites, attacks, injuries or fatalities" - unrelated to DBO and statements om dog bite statitsics/reporting need to come from reliable organizations like the AVMA or CDC who study this
 * "Using media reports and tedious fact-checking to gather information for their statistics" - language like tedious is non-neutral
 * "Their position on breed specific legislation (BSL) is that it is effective at preventing attacks and injuries because it reduces population numbers (of the breeds) which lowers incidents, and that BSL should be enacted at the state level in all 50 states" - non-neutral language - argues their position in wikipedia's voice. It should say something like "Dogsbite.org advocates for breed specific legislation"
 * "Their website even provides information on pit bull regulations in Military Housing and in over 900 cities" - undue
 * "reason for supporting laws that specifically regulate pit bulls is not just because of the fatalities caused, but because of the horrific injuries and severity of the attacks" - language like 'horrific injuries' is non-neutral in wikipedia's voice
 * "and, even though pit bulls are a minority of dogs owned, they were responsible for 64% of the deaths in 2015" - synth and unreliable use of statistics
 * "Acknowledging the years long debate between nature versus nurture with pit bull behavior, the website states it is "genetics that leaves pit bull victims with permanent and disfiguring injuries" - unreliable use of scientific statements, even through attribution through a news source - statements about genetics need to come from veterinary source
 * "On the other hand, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and other organizations have published positions opposing BSL" - unrelated to DBO
 * "Opponents of DogsBite.org include "animals rights activists, no-kill advocates, pit bull owners, pit bull fans," etc., according to Joseph Bernstein of BuzzFeed News, while fighting in "the most toxic, most hopelessly partisan topics of discussion in the blathersphere" - non-neutral wording attempting to soften or temper criticism of website
 * "DogsBite.org collects many factors for each attack incident" - undue and synth related to last sentence, plus also contains cite to their website, any information should be coming from reliable secondary source
 * "including whether or not the attacking dog was from a shelter or rescue adoption: "Between the two periods (2005-2011 and 2012-2016), there has been a 350% increase in rescue or adopted dogs inflicting fatal attacks in the U.S. ... making it the fastest growing category of the 47 measurable parameters that DogsBite.org tracks per death between the two time periods" - statistics from DBO are not reliable and should not be used this way
 * "DogsBite.org investigates and publishes with the hopes of stopping future horrific injuries such as children whose faces are mutilated by dogs recently adopted after falsely being advertised as 'great dog with a great temperament" - again, non-neutral language
 * As you can see, these are extremely problematic edits that just complicate the consensus building process going forward when there is already an active RFC over contentious content. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

By Nomopbs, response to P's 16 points
Okay, I'll respond to those.

1. It DID contain original research.
 * Example 1: "The website has been accused of using unreliable methods to collect dog bite data". Not covered in any of the citations given. It is your conclusion based off the articles you are reading. Per example cruft, "Any theory or phenomenon lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed."
 * Example 2: "has been criticized for their labeling of academic and professional veterinary and animal behavior associations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, as 'science whores'." Didn't happen. Libel. And it isn't in the citation, either. Even Bronwen Dickey didn't say that. (Your citation)
 * Example 3: "accusing them of being paid by dogfighting groups". Bronwen Dickey did NOT say that. Read her book again.
 * Example 4: "to release false scientific reports and analysis". I've never found that in any of the citations.
 * I removed the Radio-Canada sentence BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LIKE IT. (I didn't either.)

2. That language is straight out of the AVMA citation (one of your favorite citations), and I quote: "The organization's website includes victim testimonies, a tally of U.S. dog-bite fatalities, and an overview of breed-specific legislation throughout the country."

3. Funny, the citation I do give is someone who (a) is a news organization, and (b) used DogsBite.org's statistics as the entire purpose of their article. I'm not inclined to spam-link here and provide a string of citations showing example after example of DogsBite.org's statistics being quoted by news organizations, or showing language in their articles such as "According to Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org, x% of blah-blah-blah..." etc. I can do it, but it will look silly. Instead, I picked the best example to cite. I can't imagine why you think it's "undue weight" since that is one of the activities DogsBite.org does frequently. I've read dozens of articles with DogsBite.org statistics, quotes and information in them (that weren't published by DogsBite.org). There was even one today. 

4. I'm stunned. You earlier insisted repeatedly on including such wording as "DogsBite.org ADVOCATES for BSL" and you pushed references/citations showing how DogsBite.org has gotten involved in the legal and legislative process, and NOW you turn around and don't like this phrase/sentence because someone might possibly read that DogsBite actually "does actions" towards that goal?

4B. The prior version (which you weren't complaining about) had "Their website records DBRFs and compiles information about breed-specific legislation throughout the U.S.,[4] providing the statistics and information to news organizations and for legal and legislative support.[5]" and the new version says "The organization also provides statistics and information to news organizations[5] and for legal and legislative support.[6]" I don't see how you could complain about the new one but not the old one.

5. It comes straight from the citation: "Because there are no uniform reporting requirements, statistics on serious dog attacks are hard to come by."

5B. It's not irrelevant? In fact it is absolutely relevant! No official reporting means that other people will start to take over the function. The AVMA doesn't compile dog bite fatalities (that I know of), so no one would go there for statistics or reporting. And the CDC doesn't really compile them, either. If you read the recommendations from the numerous studies which I put into the article Fatal dog attacks in the United States you'll read over and over again that it is recommended that a mandatory reporting line be established for reporting dog bites. They've been crying for this for over two decades! And yet no such "official dog bite registry" has been established. It's part of the literature recommendations of FIVE studies (1996, 1997, 2000, 2009, & 2013).

6. Came straight from the cited source: "In a 2017 analysis and 13-year summary by DogsBite.org, which uses media reporting and tedious fact-checking, there were 49 canine fatalities in the U.S. in 2017. Thirty-two of these (or 82%) involved Pit Bulls or their 'close cousins.'" I don't know what kind of "not neutral" my words seem to be.

7. Straight from the cited source: "Supporters of breed-specific legislation argue that ordinances are effective at preventing attacks and injuries." and "Lynn said she believes pit bull ordinances should be enacted at the state level in all 50 states." and "'The heart of a ban is to greatly reduce the population (of the breeds) to lower incidents,' Lynn said." Why should I, or any wiki editor, water it down to simply "Dogsbite.org advocates for breed specific legislation"? The point of the article is to introduce DogsBite.org, what is it, what do they do, what do they work towards. Should we just say "It's a non-profit that counts deaths by dogs and hates pit bulls"? No, because that would be ridiculous.

8. Straight from the cited source: "Pit Bulls are regulated in Military Housing areas (and over 900 U.S. cities), according to DogsBite.org, evidence that the federal government acknowledges keeping them as pets and/or in close proximity to other dogs and humans is too high a risk to take." Undue? Why is that? You keep insisting that they "advocate for BSL". Don't you think someone who advocates for BSL would have a list of all the BSL in the area? Whether for examples of current BSL passed or simply a rundown of how many places have it, I'd surely put it on MY website if I were advocating BSL. Of course, we could go directly to the website dogsbite.org and see if they did that. Oh look, they did! You know what, all of these "undue" accusations show that you think or believe that DogsBite.org is something very, very contentious and performs no public facing charitable actions and that this article should be no more than any fringe topic like "flat earth theory" style articles. Well, early on I gave you that "out" and you didn't take it. You've been screaming on Wikipedia for five years now that DogsBite.org is "fringe" but somehow I couldn't get the article deleted based on 'notability'. Huh. Fathom that.

9. The word 'horrific' is from the cited source: "And deaths tell only a small part of the story. Horrific injuries are far more frequent. “As part of my work, I have to look at the imagery sometimes, and it’s unbelievable,” Lynn said." also "Lynn supports laws that specifically regulate pit bulls." The word was also used in another cited source: "The photos of the horrific disfigurement of this beautiful child are chilling." The subject matter, DEATHS CAUSED BY DOGS is not a neutral subject. What you're asking is for someone to write a plot summary for a chainsaw-masacre thriller movie, yet 'make it neutral'. There is nothing neutral about the injuries caused by dogs on human flesh. What needs to be neutral is the story of DogsBite.org, not the subject matter covered by DogsBite.org.

10. Again, straight from the cited source: "Last year, there were 42 such attacks. Pit bulls were responsible for 64 percent of the deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6 percent of the total dog population." I consider 6% a minority. I don't think anyone would consider that SYNTH. Oops, I got the year wrong. It was 2014, not 2015. I'll fix that in the article. Oh look, according to DogsBite.org there were 43 (not 42) fatalities and pit bulls were responsible for 65% (not 64%) of those. Gee, there must have been a 'sleeper' found later on because the numbers for 2014 went UP since the article was written in 2015. But only by a little bit. It'll do.

11. OMG, are you kidding me? It's an opinion. There is no "science" in this wiki article about DogsBite.org. No one is going to get tripped up by reading someone's opinion on the subject of "nature versus nurture".

12. Unrelated to DogsBite.org? You just complained about me removing the criticism section (which was 'original research', not true to cited sources). This is something I was able to find that could replace your criticism... that someone (non-wiki editor) actually wrote.

13. LOL. There's nothing untrue about that statement. The attempt wasn't to temper but to explain that there IS criticism, and where it comes from. (I guess you can't be assuaged. Unless it's YOUR words, you're not going to like it.)

14. I re-read WP:PRIMARY with this in mind. Result: I removed the preamble to the sentence ("In pursuit of its goals to reduce serious dog attacks,[3]") because the concatenation of that preamble along with the sentence could be construed as WP:SYNTH.

14B. However, primary sources ARE allowed. To wit: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In fact, the purpose of adding the citation to that dogsbite.org page was to support the words that followed and the citation at the end of the sentence. The citation mentioned '47 measurable parameters'. If I were a new reader to this article I would wonder "What are measurable parameters and what are the other 46?" The dogsbite.org page answers that question quite simply in the section "The parameters we collect".

15. Ah, back again to the primary source guidelines. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The secondary source (the cited article) is the one doing the interpretation. I just quoted them. To wit: "In the 7-year period of 2005 through 2011, dogs inflicted 214 deadly attacks in the United States. Only 2% (4) of those deaths involved rescue or adopted dogs." and "In the 5-year period of 2012 through 2016, dogs inflicted 178 deadly attacks in the United States. A stunning 9% (16) of these deaths involved a rescue or adopted dog, making it the fastest growing category of the 47 measurable parameters that DogsBite.org tracks per death between the two time periods." and "Between the two periods, there has been a 350% increase in rescue or adopted dogs inflicting fatal attacks in the U.S."

16A. Straight from the source: "She writes, "Animals of IPAC advertised Emmet as a 'great dog with a great temperament.'" and "The photos of the horrific disfigurement of this beautiful child are chilling," along with the actual photograph of the child's injuries in the article.

16B. Re "DogsBite.org investigates and publishes with the hopes of stopping future...": This is the stated goal over and over again from one article/citation to the next.
 * DallasNews: "Dogsbite.org, an advocacy group working to reduce serious dog attacks".
 * AVMA: "DogsBite.org has evolved into a national organization that also advocates for dog-bite victims and for preventing serious attacks."
 * At the bottom of every page on dogsbite.org is "DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks."

You see, you don't trust anything I write in Wikipedia. I included copious citations at the ends of phrases and sentences so anyone could find the source sentences with ease. You must not have spent any time trying to see if any of the wording came from the citations, but instead wasted your time writing this up AND wasted my time in drafting responses. If I sound irritated or incredulous in some of my answers it's because you are wasting my time with this endless series of complaints about anything I write on this article. This has been going on for WEEKS and I'm tired of these tactics. I've tried to be polite. I've tried to be business-like. I've tried to be thorough. But you've worn my patience so thin it's like rice paper! Anyone trying to read the entirety of this Talk page would get a migraine! You are wasting everyone else's time, too!


 * Nomopbs (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI
For transparency, Nomopbs has taken this discussion to a filing on ANI at WP:ANI. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Why were the links removed?
Why were sources removed like Radio Canada that is a reputable mainstream reputable source, (note translations have being provided on this talk page), Psychology Today is another mainstream article  and this by criticism is by published author  by Bronwen Dickey (full disclosure I did create her article). So why have they and other sources including the American Dog Breeders Association been removed?Dwanyewest (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention Stanley Coren is a reputable writer I used an article he wrote from Psychology Today as sources what's wrong with these? The Dodo (website)  as a source ? Dwanyewest (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Dodo was removed by me, I remember that: . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Dickey citations were removed because they were alleged to support PearlSt82's statements, which were all OR, and did NOT match what Bronwen said. In the end, there was nothing Dickey said that was left in the article. See #1 above, examples 1 through 4. Similarly, Radio Canada was removed as described above. Nomopbs (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These criticism are NOT OR. The full text of the Radio Canada and Dickey's book are above. The criticism section was:
 * The website has been accused of using unreliable methods to collect dog bite data, and has been criticized for their labeling of academic and professional veterinary and animal behavior associations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, as "science whores", accusing them of being paid by dogfighting groups to release false scientific reports and analysis. Radio Canada criticized Dogsbite.org for attacking the science community and attributing indirect deaths as dog bite deaths, such as a man from Tennessee who died from alcoholism related complications months after they were bitten by a dog.
 * These are reliable sources and the text reflects the sources. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the Psychology Today text isn't posted above, here is the relevant text: While polished and professional looking, Dogsbite.org relies almost exclusively on media reports for its content, and media reports are often highly inaccurate. The site's founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as "science whores," which alone is enough to discredit her claims. (I discuss this at length in chapter 11 called "Looking Where the Light Is".) PearlSt82 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PT, Bronwen and Radio Canada are good sources in this context, they should be used in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered! Read above. All of it. This subject has been covered numerous times. Wasting editors' time again. Nomopbs (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rename the page to match the organization's name
You have three different spellings of the organization's name used on one short page (Dogsbite/dogsbite/DogsBite). You should pick one version and stick with that. I suggest "DogsBite.org" since that is how the organization spells it on their own website. Wikipedia seems to be case-sensitive, particularly with page titles (except for the first letter), so a lower case "b" in the middle of the name will not match with an upper case "B" in the name. Please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.195.224 (talk • contribs) 22:02, May 10, 2019 (UTC)
 * When you type either Dogsbite, dogsbite or DogsBite in WP search, it ignores case and brings up the correct page. If that changes, perhaps a redirect would prove helpful but for now, I see no reason to move the article. The website address for the subject uses lowercase (https://www.dogsbite.org) and the first line in our article uses upper and lower case. Atsme Talk 📧 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Isn't there some code-magic that could fix this without moving? DogsBite.org seems the common name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Found Template:DISPLAYTITLE but can't make it work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3, Dogsbite.org, dogsbite.org, DogsBite.org. And therein lies the problem for all to see. Someone types it correctly and the linking does NOT work. That's what I meant by saying the first letter can be either upper or lower case and Wikipedia doesn't care (dogsbite.org = Dogsbite.org), but it does care about upper/lower case variations after the first letter (DogsBite.org ≠ Dogsbite.org). Rename the page to the correct variant and make a redirect from the old/wrong to the new/correct spelling. 107.77.195.224 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the legal filing shows it to be DOGSBITEORG INCORPORATED.Atsme Talk 📧 19:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I still feel the best compromise is that DogsBite.org should be a redirect.19:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, redirect would be the easiest. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

New (well, you know) criticism section
In general, these are IMO a bad idea per Criticism, but the current version looks quite reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the text should probably be worked into the article better. I think this could be done if the prose of the other two sections are significantly tightened up. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)