Talk:George (dog)

August 2011
What is this dog doing on wikipedia...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.13.154 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

agreed...this is not what i think wikipedia should be about. since i don't see an article for every fireman, policeman, etc that's ever saved a person's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.32.24 (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't? Well, let me help you with that. Start at Category:British recipients of the George Cross. Lots of articles about life-saving firemen and policemen there. But anyway, you find me a recipient of the George Cross that doesn't have a Wikipedia article about them - and I promise you that I shall create one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should ever be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.212.4 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand wanting to prune non encyclopaedic entries but the fact that the individual is a [dog] is not reason to delete it. The dog's heroism is recognised by an organisation and wikipedia has a capacity to have entires for all acts of recorded heroism, in all countries, in all languages, by all species. Cordyceps (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

90.2k views?
Yesterday, according to the grok.se tool (linked in the history of the article on the top), this article received a ton of views -- 90.2k! -- no wonder there are suddenly lots of comments. Is the dog being given large amounts of current attention in the media? The incident was four years ago and the award two, so I'm quite curious. If you're a reader who sees this, why did you look up George? Anna (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * George's existence was posted up on Reddit recently on the todayilearned page. That is why it has so many views, mine included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.38.38 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. Anna (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
The phrase "they were set upon by a pair of Pit Bulls" in the second sentence of the biography should probably be rephrased to to indicate they were attacked, if that is indeed what 'set upon' means. Bananastalktome (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George (dog). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214211821/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Dog-Bravery-Jack-Russell-George-Awarded-PDSA-Gold-Medal-For-Saving-Children-From-Pit-Bull-Terriers/Article/200902215220504 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Dog-Bravery-Jack-Russell-George-Awarded-PDSA-Gold-Medal-For-Saving-Children-From-Pit-Bull-Terriers/Article/200902215220504

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

euthanasia
has twice now ( & ) replaced the word "euthanised" in the article—with "executed" and "put down", respectively. I reverted the original change because The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) specifically said, "Authorities have euthanised the two pit bulls". Martindo suggests that "euthanize means 'put out of its suffering' -- the pit bulls were aggressive, maybe even evil, but not suffering -- change to 'put down' if you prefer", yet has presented no reliable sources to support this interpretation, nor that the SMH is even disagreeing with their interpretation at all.Does anybody have any input to support Martindo's edits? This is the discuss step of the BRD process. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  15:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refer to a dictionary for the definition of "euthanise". Note also that an INdirect quotation doesn't need to slavishly follow the source, particularly if the source is in error. An indirect quotation is a paraphrasal. I don't see anyone challenging other parts of the original paraphrasal as not conforming to the source.Martindo (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines "euthanise" as a verb meaning to "put (an animal) to death humanely." In your first change, you claimed that the animals were "executed", which the OED defines as "carry[ing] out a sentence of death on (a legally condemned person)" or "kill[ing] (someone) as a political act."  As that's plainly inappropriate, "euthanised" seems the better word to use.  In your second change, you claimed that the animals were "put down", which the OED defines as "a remark intended to humiliate or criticize someone."  I'm not sure what you intended this to actually mean, but I'm pretty sure "euthanises meaning of "put (an animal) to death humanely" is more likely what the SMH meant in their reporting.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  15:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)