Talk:Man bites dog

July 24th 2008 - Boy Bites Dog In Brazil
Would you think this should also be mentioned in the article? http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_25058.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.66.73 (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * your link is now dead, but i found another, and sure enough (duh), a media source quotes the phrase, so ill add it. this is sort of dictionary definition stuff, or "brewers phrase and fable" sourcing, but thats ok. maybe someone will transwiki it to wiktionary one day.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Real Life Examples" not relevant
The second section of the piece is just a list of real-life examples of a person biting a dog. I don't think it contributes anything to the article; I'd go so far as to say it's not relevant. 155.212.205.238 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted all of the examples that were not examples of man bites dog in journalism. I also deleted the irrelevant "See also" section. I left the examples of man biting dog in journalism as, well, the article is about man bites dog in journalism. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the list should only show events where the phrase is quoted, and should NOT be a repository for every actual "man bites dog" occurrence (which, thanks to our friend alcohol, is actually not that uncommon). I would say its better to use incidents that are NOT literally "man bites dog", as the headline sort of has to use the phrase, whereas other unusual events dont. (i added a "man bites snake" story where reports did, of course, reference the adage)(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man bites dog (journalism). 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/20130507020514/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/05/05/08/44/man-bites-dog-to-save-wife to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/05/05/08/44/man-bites-dog-to-save-wife

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) 05:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

TV & Movie Reference
Man Bites Dog (1992) C'est arrivé près de chez vous (original title)

"Man Bites Dog" is a classic cult movie comedy from Belgium, playing on the sensationalist bias in TV journalism, when a documentary crew gets embroiled in the murders of the psychopath they're featuring.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Man bites dog (journalism). 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/20121003160039/http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/3548--boy-bites-dog-in-brazil to http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/3548--boy-bites-dog-in-brazil
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219171758/http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Man-bites-dog-dies-Stop-shop-Cambridge/story-25722681-detail/story.html to http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Man-bites-dog-dies-Stop-shop-Cambridge/story-25722681-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218174517/http://highlandstoday.com/hi/local-news/dog-shoots-man-accidentally-police-say-643226 to http://highlandstoday.com/hi/local-news/dog-shoots-man-accidentally-police-say-643226

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) 21:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move both pages as proposed, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 08:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

– WP:DIFFCAPS / all other entries on the disambiguation page are uppercase. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisted.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Man bites dog (journalism) → Man bites dog
 * Man bites dog → Man Bites Dog

Moved per cited policy and guideline and per general agreement below. (nac by page mover)  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Relist note: reopened and relisted as the result of a request on my talk page. Members of WikiProject Journalism have been notified of this request.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there  16:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The argument that the journalism is the only topic is based on policy (WP:PRECISE) since all the other uses are called "Man Bites Dog", this is the only topic called "Man bites dog" so it unambiguously defines the topic and distinguishes it from others. So to quote you're words at Talk:Unlikely "the one and only topic with that name". I agree however that SMALLDETAILS works less well when the more popular or important topic is at a harder to type title, see Talk:George Puscas (sports writer) for example, but the guideline for it is "small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics". As far as BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT goes I think that also supports the move since it asks what the average person is likely to know rather than those biased based on location or interest, this is also compliant with the "precise enough to be understood by most people" for the energy example in PRECISE. As far as PT#1 goes its probably not primary topic many readers probably wouldn't capitalize even when looking for proper nouns by by PT#2 its the only topic by this name and is likely primary by that criteria even if we disregard DIFFCAPS.".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unlike the situations for when the only usage has a specific capitalization and editors argue that a reader writing that specific way can only mean they are searching for that title, the same cannot be said for all lowercase. That's just how people search. This helps no one other than you for some reason (and it's a bit annoying that I'll need to copy/paste my same argument to all nominations now). --Gonnym (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely support this one, not per nom but per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There's pretty much no question about this one. Hell, I was familiar with this idea by junior high school, and had never heard of a single other thing listed on that disambiguation page (though the 1992 one post-dates my school days).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support although the film and company gets more views (4,087) than the journalism (1,358) [|Man_Bites_Dog_(film)|Man_Bites_Dog_(company)] this is indeed the only use of the lower case.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as primary topic per SMcCandlish. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Meaning of the phrase. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, given the page view stats presented by, the journalism usage is not the primary topic. The fact that the film uses title case is of little relevance since users can be expected to use all lowercase when searching for said title. --В²C ☎ 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The journalism phrase is the origin of all the various proper title uses. -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted at User talk:Paine Ellsworth:
 * Oppose: The current name is a phrase, not a title. The fact that it is the only use without title case is irrelevant. It is the general use of the phrase, while the other articles are specific uses. Changing it to title case would make it inconsistent with other articles in WP. Websurfer2 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Websurfer2 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood what's being proposed here, the proposal is to move the phrase to "Man bites dog" (lower case) and to move the disambiguation to Man Bites Dog, the phrase is not being moved to "Man Bites Dog"! This is normal and common, see WP:DIFFCAPS and the example of Friendly fire (an article about the military meaning) and Friendly Fire (a DAB page).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I strike my previous comment. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I am fine with (1) rename "Man bites dog (journalism)" to "Man bites dog", (2) rename "Man bites dog" DAB page to "Man Bites Dog", and (3) add at the top of this article a "For other uses" link to the DAB page. Additional "For other uses" links could also be added for the film and the company if they are expected to be common search targets. This is consistent with other articles. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This looks like the clear primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and original close. Place a hatnote pointing directly to the 2 "Man Bites Dog" articles for anyone searching without a shift key. Station1 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The company only gets a few views, as of my !vote of the 4th the views [|Man_Bites_Dog_(film)|Man_Bites_Dog_(company)] show 4,018 for the film, 1,373 for the journalism but only 38 for the company, per WP:1HAT I think we only need a direct hatnote to the film.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Examples of literal use
About this recent removal of examples of literal use, I think this material should be restored. It's not original research. These illustrative examples are educational for our readers, and improve the article. And about this, it should also be put back, in my view. "Dog shoots man" and "deer shoots man" are both related topics, and should be included here. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors searching out examples like this is textbook OR. If their existence is somehow enlightening there will be a source commenting on that. As it is they’re just a bunch of Google results strung together. EEng 02:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OR says, "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." That's why I say that citing the examples is not original research.  — Mudwater (Talk) 02:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The section under discussion, “Literal use in journalism”, begins with the following item:
 * In 2000, the Santa Cruz Sentinel ran a story titled "Man bites dog" about a San Francisco man who bit his own dog.
 * That’s just an article about a man who who bit a dog. It’s your idea that somehow it illustrates this charming saying. It’s true that some of the other items do explicitly give a hackneyed nod (“They say that when dog bites man [etc etc]”) but then we have a WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem: as that policy says, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Where’s the independent source putting these far-flung examples in context? What is the reader meant to learn from them? It’s just a numbing blister with no point. EEng 03:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What's a "numbing blister"? If that's a metaphor, I don't get either the literal or the figurative meaning.  — Mudwater (Talk) 11:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I meant “numbing list”. My phone’s autocorrect has a sense of humor. EEng 12:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping. E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Other interested editors are encouraged to post their views on this question. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I know this has been inactive since 2020, but I agree with this sentiment—when I first saw this section, I saw it as unneeded. I think it could potentially be improved, however, if it was less disjointed and a more concise paragraph or two of a few examples of usage, and not every single one (or an excessive number of examples). Mitsuba seagull 23:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)