Talk:DogsBite.org/Archive 2

Explanation of text removed; 'science whore' term was never used against AVMA or organizations
I have removed a phrase of text in the criticism section added by User:PearlSt82 on May 6, 2019. (diff:) There is no reference or citation supporting the words "and has been criticized for its labeling of academic and professional veterinary and animal behavior associations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, as "science whores". PearlSt82 used two citations, neither of which include any words to support the concept.

I had tagged the phrase needing a supporting citation,(diff:) but User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång removed it (diffs: & ) and quipped "It is in PT, as indicated, pute scientifique" by which he means it's in a section of the French language Radio Canada article which uses the term "pute scientifique". However, it is not there, either.

I have researched the matter and provide evidence herewith. Nomopbs (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of the proof

 * Dickey's book never said the term "science whore" was used against the AVMA. Dickey's book said it was used to describe individuals, not organizations.
 * Dickey's press release, published in Psychology Today, says nothing different.
 * Radio Canada's article said the term "science whore" was used against individuals.
 * The source entry for "Science whore", part of a blog called Maul Talk Manual, was written by another scientist and she said it was a term used to describe individuals, not organizations.

So PearlSt82's version that the term was used by DogsBite.org to describe AVMA and other organizations is untrue. Also, PearlSt82's version that DogsBite.org was "accused" of using the term to describe AVMA and other organization is also untrue.

Images of the references
Images of all documents in question

Dickey's book
 * Page 186, photograph:
 * Page 187, photograph:
 * Page 301, photograph:

Dickey's media kit press release


 * Screenshot with section highlighted:

Radio Canada article
 * Screenshot of translation, highlighted:
 * Source: Wikipedia page for Talk:DogsBite.org

Maul Talk Manual
 * Screenshot image:
 * Source: Internet version of Maul Talk Manual

Dickey's book
Pages 186-187: "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 Professional Dog Trainers, and almost every other animal welfare organization in the country other than PETA. According to Dogslsite.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. 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 behaviorists who insist that there is no scientific basis for breed bans."

Page 301 (footnotes for the book's text):

187 The site is also littered with childish ad hominems:"Maul Talk Manual," Dogsbite.org.

187 "Pit Bulls should be used for target practice": Posted by an anonymous user, July 31, 2008, under the site's comment policy: http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/06/dogsbiteorg-comment-policy-nc-plt.html.

Dickey's media kit press release on Psychology Today
"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," ... (I discuss this at length in chapter 11 called "Looking Where the Light Is".)"

Radio Canada translation
"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."

Maul Talk Manual, entry for "science whore"
“Science whores”

Not the same as perceived experts. These are people who actually have the academic credentials and occupations needed to call themselves scientists. The science whore is willing to twist real scientific facts and findings in order to protect the pit bull. The science whore can be motivated by greed. Wanting to keep making money on the very lucrative dog-talk circuit, s/he sells both soul and credibility for a few dollars. Some might be motivated by fear, since all who speak or publish the truth about the pit bull is subject to an organized smear and bullying campaign.

How to spot a science whore: The science whore can fill an entire book with detailed explanation of how all working breeds have ended up with genetically determined, strongly heritable behavioral characteristics that can’t be trained out of a dog — and then towards the end of the book suddenly denies that this is also true of the pit bull. The science whore either mixes up relevant variables or ignores them altogether. In a discussion about sustained, maiming and killing attacks by dogs large and heavy enough to actually kill an adult human, the science whore will publish an article proclaiming, for example, that ‘dachshunds bite the most‘.

The list includes a great many people with PhDs as well as many publishing academics. It does not include personnel of the 'National Canine Research Council', which is not a scientific organization.

– Author and animal behaviorist Alexandra Semyonova (nonlineardogs.com) September 27, 2010

PearlSt82's May 6, 2019 version
"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"."

Wikipedia editor policies applicable to this subject
No original research policy states:
 * "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

Biographies of living persons policy states:

(Note: DogsBite.org is run by a single person who is named in the DogsBite.org article, therefore BLP policies apply in this context.)


 * "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)."


 * "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."


 * "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."


 * "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards."


 * "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."


 * "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources."

Conclusion
The phrase which PearlSt82 added, and which I removed, was original research not supported by any citation thus far introduced. Leaving it in the Wikipedia encyclopedia would be against policy, therefore I removed it. If anyone wishes to reintroduce the subjects of the "science whore" term, or criticisms against AVMA, then you must do it within the guidelines of Wikipedia editor policies including NPOV, V, & NOR. Nomopbs (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Commentary
If there are any comments on this subject, please place them below.

WOW that's a lot of text. I may read it at some point but the WP:TLDR is high. In short, the sentence removed here has support in the provided sources:   Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a shame you don't want to read what is laid out in simple language, instead continuing to blindly assert something that is untrue, and supporting an edit that is against Wikipedia policy. One of the main purposes of the Talk page in Wikipedia is to describe in more detail any changes made to an article that may be contentious.
 * I added to the evidence sections above your newly mentioned citation (the Psychology Today article). It changes nothing.
 * First, I would say that the book is the more senior reference than an interview (or more precisely, a media kit press release about the book with interview questions and answers both provided by publicist).
 * Second, in reference to the PT language, who are "people in the AVMA"? They are individuals. Are you referring to "a veterinarian that is a MEMBER of the AVMA"? That doesn't mean AVMA as an organization.
 * The Psychology Today article changes nothing. Nomopbs (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The relevant page in Bronwyn's book is 187, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the relevant reference IS on Dickey's book page 187. But Dickey didn't write what PearlSt82 says she wrote. Photographs of the book's page 186 & 187 are included as links above. Read it! Nomopbs (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Page 187 of Dickey's book is here Dwanyewest (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I linked it twice myself in this thread. However, readability on gbooks tends to change between attempted searches and/or location. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The proper source for this is the Psychology Today article. I've reinserted it with the citation formatted in the right place. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also an open discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, maybe comments on this would best be suited there. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the relevant text in PT (partly supported in the other 2 sources):


 * "Can you say something about Dogsbite.org?
 * 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 think one of Nomopbs points here (apart from that the PT source changes nothing), is that "science whores" per this text need not mean the entire organisations, just select people in them. It is a point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I wouldn't see any problems to changing it to 'including the people at the American Veterinary Medical Association, as "science whores"'PearlSt82 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Make that "including people at the American Veterinary Medical Association", the people hints it's everybody. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me, will add. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent, noone can argue with that (that's just a little joke of mine). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "science whores" relevant text from the other two sources is


 * "Le site DogsBite.org va même jusqu'à utiliser le terme « pute scientifique » (« science whore ») pour qualifier certains experts."
 * and
 * "The site is also litterd with childish ad hominems like "pit nutter (an epithet for pit bull owners)" and "science whore," a term used to describe the veterinarians and behaviorists who insist that there is no scientific basis for breed bans."


 * I mention this because I think it argues that "science whores" deserve a sentence in the article per WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Banner
and and anyone interested, how do you feel about removing both or either of these bannered problems? Have the issues been dealt with to a level that the "warnings" can be removed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you remove them. Nomopbs (talk)
 * No objections to the banner removal. I think the article could use a good touch-up for prose, style and tightness, but that isn't anything pressing. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I hereby declare this a consensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)