|WikiProject Dogs||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|A fact from Attack dog appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 11400 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
attacking vs protecting ... an issue of neutrality
The purpose of an "attack" dog is to protect. Protection is a trait that most of us would consider beneficial; however, it has a potentially adverse side. All dogs have the urge to protect, regardless of their breed or training. I suggest this ought to be the core proposition of the article: if nothing else, it would help balance the article's neutrality and clarify its direction.
Attacking is just one way of accomplishing the dog's main goal, and "attacks" do not have to include injury. A person tripped and pinned by a large dog will probably consider himself attacked; a person barked at by a large dog with raised hackles might consider herself threatened with an attack. (I imagine the spy captured by Sergeant Stubby - the most decorated canine in the US military - would agree!)
I also think that making an example of certain breeds of dogs as attack dogs is not a good way of maintaining neutrality in this article, unless the positive side of their breeding and training is presented as well. For example, Pit Bulls were originally trained to protect farmers from charging bulls. They were bred for strength and tenacious grip, but also for extreme loyalty to humans: so much so that they were long considered to be the ideal family dog!
Finally, I think it is important to distinguish the difference between "attacking" and "fighting".
- I strongly oppose this suggestion, sorry. The dog training article is about dog training - this article is about the uses and history of attack dogs, as well as some detail on how they are trained. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose the merge as well. There is enough content on this distinct subject to keep it separate. Steven Walling (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Attack dog isn't equal to a dog trained to attack? I only see three paragraphs in this article. Almost a stub. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Traqueto (talk • contribs) 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dog training is about training dogs, Attack dog is about the history, training and uses of attack dogs. Much the same as how Police dog is not merged with Dog training ("Police dog isn't equal to a dog trained to serve the police?") Also, this article is away above stub status; to get included in DYK an article needs to have 1500 characters of prose, this article has 2873 (DYK does not accept stubs). ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 01:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm training a dog right now. It's not an "attack dog." A friend of mine was disabled for life by an "attack dog." (Remind me to read this article.)
- A merger is unwarranted. It'd be like arguing that an article on military tanks ought to be merged with one on motor vehicle manufacturing. In fact, I'm going to remove the merger tag. If somebody wants to, they can put it back on.
- A merger would have no merit.
"10% of dogs..." statistic
The article says 10% of dogs involved in an attack can be attributed to dogs that have received attack dog training. The citation is United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on the Environment (1976). Animal Welfare Improvement Act of 1975: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Environment of the Committee on Commerce. United States Government, 111. “Nearly 10 per cent of the dogs that have bitten people have received attack dog training.” This statistic and the context of the citation are unclear with respect to whether or not this statement is politically influenced or based upon some study. For such a strong statement, I think any studies cited should be a bit more specific.Organ.donor (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- The source, which I personally don't see anything wrong with (albeit I have a large COI as the original author of the article). It was in information presented to the United States Congress before the passing of the Animal Welfare Improvement Act of 1975. While the information may have been used for political purposes, this doesn't automatically make it politically slanted. Surely, if it was good enough to have laws passed, it's a good enough source to substantiate claims in a Wikipedia article? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 13:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)