|WikiProject Dogs||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Nonviable references
- 2 Normative Sentence
- 3 Benefits Section
- 4 Major Changes Made
- 5 Article title
- 6 I edited benefits page
- 7 Neutrality Check Nomination
- 8 Unreferenced Assertions
- 9 Design and Landscape features of off-leash dog parks
- 10 POV
- 11 References missing?
- 12 Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
The dog whisperer and a Master's thesis aren't good sources. One is from popular media and the other isn't a published book or article, just someone's thesis. The quoted material (from the thesis) is dead on, but needs a better source.Editfromwithout (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Totally agreed. I found this, er, gem through the copyediting backlog and tried to clean it up as best I could, but it really needs a thorough scrubbing of POV and unreliable sources. Will happily support any changes and try to help out with better sourcing if you're interested in working on this.
- Also, just FYI, the general convention 'round these parts is to put new talk page comments below the older ones. Just the social norm on English Wikipedia (interestingly, it's the opposite on Russian Wikipedia!). Accedietalk to me 02:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd have preferred a discussion before you removed the sentence, IP user. I will be finding sources and "correcting" what you deem to be an opinion instead of fact, since much of what is listed in that sentence not only makes common sense, but happens to be promoted by dog park etiquette experts. Vsanborn (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I am actually the author of the benefits page on the FETCH web site (and its webmaster.) So I think it can be restored. But, not being that up onthese things, can you confirm that the footnotes crediting the two facts are adequate for this purpose?
Ron from Whidbey island
Major Changes Made
PLEASE NOTE: I've made extensive changes to this entry between March and April of 2009, adding citations and working on the neutrality of the tone. It's been two years since the last comments were made. I believe that some of my changes address the issues you had with the original writing, however I kept the original outlines where I could. Vsanborn (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Having waited a couple of weeks for discussion, I've removed the "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." Opinions have been neutralized; several points of view have been taken into account, and inline citations have been added.Vsanborn (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
While you're at it, can someone get rid of this little gem?
- "My dog Darby and I visit the Minnehaha Regional Park off-leash area almost every day that I'm not at work," enthused Robert Coffman, St. Paul. "It's good exercise for the two of us. It's a pleasant way for me to get some fresh air, and Darby couldn't be happier!"
- Just found there's a Dog Park (movie) Great. Why'd the disambiguation have to be at Dog Park with nothing at Dog park? OK, so should we move the page back to Dog park (dogs), or have two articles, Dog park and Dog Park? - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oooh, I like the idea of Dog park (orangutans). Should be entertaining. Let's start one (the park, I mean, not the article). I think that this should be the article on dog parks with a reference to Dog Park (movie). I don't know that we really need a dab page; doesn't seem likely that there'll be more than these 2 references, although I suppose you never can tell. Elf | Talk 05:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Here's what happened: I wrote the original dog park article, but found that an article for the movie already existed. Therefore, I created a dog park (dogs) article and then created a disambiguation page. This was back in June of 2004. At that time, I didn't really know what else to do.The Dogfather 20:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I edited benefits page
I took out this: "Off-leash dog areas are places of camaraderie and friendship. They are wonderful places used by caring and responsible people."
This was just too hokey and opinionated. I personally love dog parks, but there are plenty of irresponsible people that use them. It just sounded too much like a plug- not very fitting for a dictionary.
- I agree to the change. They're just dog parks, not a religion. And as much as I like visiting the dog park, it is from time to time visited by ignorant oafish people and their aggressive, dangerous mutts.
I've also removed this section, which sounds like an editorial:
While suburban and rural zones have traditionally been areas containing most of the pet-owning population, the urban environment has been undergoing an increase in pet population since the 1970s. This, combined with the fact that over the past 15 years urbanization has been taking over what was formerly considered to be suburban and rural areas, has resulted in a phenomenon called "urbananimalization." This, first of all, encompasses the recognition that animals are and will continue to be a "quality of life" aspect of urban society. Secondly, it recognizes that development must specifically provide for the inclusion of domestic animals in its growth plans.
I removed an oddly-written conclusion from the Concerns section that appeared to be more of a plug for an author/website. It began "It is a mistake for owners to assume that their dogs will be well behaved and will know doggie etiquette just because they visit a dog park. In Dog Parks: Why They Are a Bad Idea!, Ed Frawley states:..." There are several things wrong with this including: it seems like just a plug for the author, it draws a conclusion that something is a "mistake" by citing only one source as opposed to stating that there are sources who consider it a mistake, and, not the least, it says "doggie etiquette" outside of a quotation. --joeOnSunset (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality Check Nomination
User talk:126.96.36.199 anonymously nominated this article for a neutrality check. I discovered this page after linking to it. Boy, this article really really really sucks! I was hoping for information about various parks around the country, world, etc., how they are managed, etc. Instead there are unsourced diatribes for and against dogs. Quite frankly this article would be best served by nuking everything except the lead graf and the links. Unless the sections are rewritten or you can give compelling reasons why they should stay I will probably do that. Americasroof 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- In looking at the history the part that is most offensive is the anonymous unsourced rant added by User talk:188.8.131.52 in December 2005. If I nuke sections of the article it will be the unsourced data and that section will have to go. Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling this will turn into flamebait. The only way to keep things cool is to put sources on everything.Americasroof 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I think the original article that I wrote was sufficient. As usual a lot of other helpful "editors" came along and added a load of opinionated crap to an otherwise neutral, simple page. The Dogfather 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been an activist for off-leash hours and off-leash park area for dogs for several years. I was hoping that Wikipedia had some good material. I am very disappointed in what this article contains and especially what it lacks: cited sources for the claims made. DCDuring 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed this unsubstantiated sentence - "They make better neighbors because they bark and dig out of their enclosure less often. If they do escape, they are far less likely to be aggressive." - and replaced it with one that has a citation: Vsanborn (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Design and Landscape features of off-leash dog parks
This whole section is horrible. There is not a single source cited, it sounds like a lot of original research. And some of the claims are quite preposterous! Single women needing to let their dogs off-leash at night at Walmart? I didn't want to be rash and delete it all, but if we can't clean this section up I guess that's the only option. --GSchjetne (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree this entire section needs to be scrapped. It has become someone's opinion piece.The Dogfather (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Section deleted. I'd also like to see the Instant dog park section go as well, but I'm afraid once I start blanking sections I can't stop :P
- On the other hand, is this an article that really needs to be long at all? For instance, the benefit section contains a heap of uninteresting statistics from the US, which of course means little to the rest of the English-speaking world. Only the last paragraph actually addresses the benefits to the dogs. And I guess the main benefit to owners would be not having to frequently travel to the countryside when living in the city. I'll give this some thought myself and maybe attempt a rewrite. --GSchjetne (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, much of the article looks like a pro and con listing of debate points. That does not make up an encyclopedia article. Secondly its describing some things as "benefits" is POV in and of itself; maybe someone would see those points as negatives? Or vice versa? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- You must be new here ;-) The Dogfather (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference 32, regarding Cesar Milan's suggestions on pre-park walks seems to be missing, and a search of the site it sends me to is utterly unhelpful in regards to finding it. I'd say this needs to be re-sourced. Also, feel free to use this for any other out-of-date reference finds. Laws of Fizzix (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- Triggered by
\barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\bon the global blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.