Talk:History of dog fighting

I have created this article to expand the Dog fighting article. This is a work-in-progress with room for expansion. Elf-Masher 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need to be cleaned up or merged with dog fighting. It is to long and it is going to grow longer. It is not POV it is based on facts. Elf-Masher 09:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The Dog fighting article is barely more than a stub, and if all the non-encyclopaedic POV were cut out here, the remaining good material would certainly fit much more appropriately into Dog fighting. Regards, Fawcett5 11:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree. Just as one example from the beginning of the article, which reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article:

History of dog fighting goes back beyond antiquity, it is an ancient dream of mankind to have the incorruptible fighting dog, which protects from enemies and fills the owner with pride to have exclusive power that is so dangerous to all other humans and animals. The protection offered goes beyond the barking of the warner, with the fighting dogs' powerful bite a valued weapon for the owner in the constant battle against the surrounding hostile world.

More encyclopedically would be something along the lines of:

Dog fighting has occurred throughout history. Many breeds were bred specifically for the strength, attitude, and physical features that would make them better fighting dogs. (The rest of this paragraph seems more to focus on guard dogs, not fighting dogs, but it's still written in an unencylopedic way.)

Elf | Talk 16:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

voting

Merge The article is certainly POV, it is also non encyclopedic and sounds like a possible copyvio to me. There really is no need for a "history of dog fighting" page.

I agree with elf with the fact that once the article has been encyclopedia-fied, the infomation remaining would fit snugly into the dog fighting page. Which, thanks to this page, has already been reduced to a half-a-stub with nothing more than "main article" links dashed across it! Tekana (O.o) Talk 18:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Very POV article, should be merged back in with the main article. - Trysha ^(talk) 19:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is clear, and technically, no voting is required - it just requires someone interested enough to do it.. Fawcett5 21:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And although I asked at Talk:Dog fighting what else might go into that article to justify it being separate, apparently he doesn't know, as he couldn't answer that question. Elf | Talk 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Removing odd, irrelevant accusation. Elf | Talk) None of you have contributed one word to the Dog fighting article and none of you even know about Dog Fighting. (Removing barely veiled threat. Elf | Talk) Elf-Masher 23:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I originally had an article structure similar to Bullfighting in mind when I contributed to the dog fighting article. Disclaimer: I have never seen or done dog fighting myself, and my knowledge about the subject is limited to dog fighting in Japan. That said, I would appreciate references for several statements, such as "Dog fighting ...is presumed to have existed since the initial domestication of the species." The Injuries section and Training and Feeding section appear to concentrate on dog fighting in western countries. It may be more appropriate for me to create a separate Token article, although I'm not sure whether I can develop it into something decent. Atsi Otani 02:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]