Talk:Dogs in warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Dogs (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Urgent![edit]

There are two topics in Wikipedia about "Wardog/War dogs"!!!

Wardog and War Dogs

Wardog is shorter.

I suggest we either merge Wardog with War Dogs, or just delete it entirely. Jak722 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jak. I recently added in all information from the Wardogs article that was not already present in this article. The other article was mainly good for introduction purposes, though there were a few historic facts that were not present in this article. The Wardogs article no contains no information not present in this article, and as such I believe it should be deleted. All it is is a smaller repeat of this article. Stop Me Now! 16:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone Tag[edit]

I recently came through and changed the wording to change the tone. Several places made references to the reader and the write (we, us). I removed these instances and rewrite portions of the article to be more formal. Seeing as to the lack of debate on this page, I will be removing the formal tone tag. If anyone disagrees, feel free to post here and replace the tag. The other tag, lack of sources cited, is my fault, as I wrote this article a few years ago and simple put my sources at the bottom and didn't actually cite the sources. Almost all of the information needed is in those pages, and I still don't fully get the how to cite sources, so anyone should feel free to fix that. I will be attempting to fix it later, as I have finals right now so time is really not a luxury. Stop Me Now! 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rank?[edit]

I've seen military working dogs referred to with a rank in front of their name. Does anyone have any info about how or why they are given rank?Dragsterhund (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern Use[edit]

It seems there is hardly any information about dogs in modern times in the military. The article briefly states that dogs were used during the Vietnam War. I am placing a link to a news article that discusses dogs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Feel free to cite from this article. HotOne121 02:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Danish dog sledge unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sl%C3%A6depatruljen_Sirius be mentioned in this article? 212.242.155.210 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dog usage in Vietnam[edit]

It seems to me that the section mentioning Vietnam should be expanded to mention what happened to the dogs at the end of the war. This is a travesty that deserves to be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.178.204 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

They became dinner? I know this is a month old IP, so I'm not really expecting a response, but it seems like an odd cliffhanger to hint at a travesty but not describe it. Should we be familiar with the fate of military working dogs in Vietnam? Protonk (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems the dogs were generally euthanized or else left behind, which is presumably what the anonymous user is alluding to. This would warrant a mention, but a preliminary Googling didn't bring up any usable sources.--Fullobeans (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Approximately 4000 MWDs went to Vietnam, only about 204 came home. The dogs were regarded as "expendable equipment" and either systematically euthanized, assigned to the South Vietnamese Army (where it suspected that many were eaten),or set loose in the jungles to fend for themselves. A few "fortunate" MWDs were sent to the Thailand Army. For more details you can check: http://www.vspa.com/k9/warrior.htm as well as viewing and informative Vietnam War Dog Video at http://www.uswardogs.org/Video%20Flash/John%20&%20Clipper/index.htm. Since 6 November 2000, retiring MWDs deemed suitable can be adopted by their handlers, law enforcement, or qualified civilians instaed of being mandatoril euthanized at the end of their careers. For those interested in adopting a K-9 Hero this website gives much information: www.militaryworkingdogadoptions.com .MWDsRock (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)MWDsRock

As a Marine officer in Vietnam, my job was to run supply convoys to fire bases. The convoys would consist of vehicles from many different units, so we had an assembly point where the vehicles were to meet by an appointed time, after which the convoy departed. After dispatching vehicles from my own Motor Transport Battalion to supply points, I would proceed to the assembly area with my gun trucks and command vehicles to await the arrival of the cargo vehicles for positioning within the convoy. One constant problem was the Vietnamese vendors who gathered to sell items (anything, even women) to the truck drivers. Some of them were most definitely Viet Cong agents seeking information of any type, including cargo, destination, etc. Keeping them away was a full time task as they would immediately appear again on the other side of the assembly area if they were scared off by my armed Marines. But when a Marine dog handler and his dog would arrive, the Vietnamese would rapidly disappear. I was told that this fear of dogs was due to a religious belief that had something to do with dog bites, but I can't remember what it was, and I'm not sure it was even true. I took the opportunity to speak with a number of dog handlers as I was fascinated by the program, because I love dogs. They often told me of their concerns as to what would happen to the dogs when they left country. They told stories of other dogs turned over to Vietnamese troops that were killed and eaten or just starved as the Vietnamese ate the U.S.-provided dog food themselves. Most "pet dogs" in Vietnam existed by foraging. To illustrate this, and I really hesitate writing this here, aside from dead bodies my grossest experience in Viet Nam occurred on one convoy while passing through a village. I observed a young Vietnamese boy squatting and defecating. As the steaming feces came out of his body on that cold morning, a dog had his head under the boy's bottom and was eating the feces as fast as they appeared. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In fiction/In gaming[edit]

I'm not generally biased against trivia sections, but I really fail to see how this one benefits the article. Nothing in it seems relevant enough to work into the text, so unless someone wants to totally revamp this section, I vote to replace it with a sentence such as, "War dogs have become somewhat iconic, and appear occasionally in war-themed fiction and video games." Fullobeans (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical examples[edit]

I'm not sure how Hammurabi could have used war dogs in 210BC, since he had been dead for 1500 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.140.191 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • 55 BC - Caesar mentions the Briton warriors gathering along the cliffs with their ferocious warhounds, making the English mastiff the first recorded breed, when he invades.
  • 50 - Rome conquers Britannia. Giant fighting dogs called Pugnaces Britanniae are discovered and exported for integration into the military of ancient Rome.

I do not see the first in Caesar; the second appears to be false (and has an arbitrary date). Both are unsourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead Image Size[edit]

In reference to your change made to the [1] "Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogs_in_warfare&diff=255225188&oldid=255210503 which means it can be up to 300px. -Signaleer (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the note I left?
The default is 300px. Therefore, specifying an image size of 300px is meaningless, and will only inconvenience those users that have specified thumbnails to be a different resolution, to no real gain. Unless there is a specific reason to size a thumbnail, it should be left to the default, because users will choose the size that is appropriate to thier screen resolution. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Look at the context of the image, the first image is the lead image and therefore should be hardcoded for users to see, according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style policy, the lead image should be aligned to the right and no larger than 300 pixels. I generally do not hardcode the images unless they are panoramic, centered or other specific reasons because I agree but in this context, the image which you unhardcoded is the lead image therefore is the exception. -Signaleer (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The MOS is indeed what I quoted, Wikipedia:Image use policy. Look at your preferences panel. The options for thumbnail sizes are 120, 150, 180, 200, 250, and 300 pixels. A user wouldn't be able to choose a preference to render an image that was larger than 300 (I suspect because of this policy). And while the MOS says that forcing the image may be approrpiate for a lead image, I don't see that it is in this case. It says that it should be no larger than 300px, which means that every other smaller sizing, including all of the ones that are user-prefernce set, are acceptable, and there exists no real reason that it should be hardcoded. So far, your arguments have all gone to say that "it's not forbidden", but I'm asking you: "what is the use?"... If there is no real purpose to hard-coding 300 pixels, then why bother? Those folks with smaller resolutions would not want a 300 pixel image crowding more than half of thier screen. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't look at the main site, go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style and read the section where it says "Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels" -Signaleer (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, I have. You keep stating that as if it explained everything, when all it really does is support my stance. "...no larger than" does not mandate that the image must be hard-coded to 300 pixels. Perhaps you should work on your logical arguments? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You seem misinformed and do not understand the guidelines which are set, clearly it is acceptable to create the lead photo at 300px. Please try to be more civil and avoid make any personal attacks. -Signaleer (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is quite tiresome. I am quite well aware of policy, and I point out yet again that policy does not mandate your approach. You keep making the same argument, that you can, but that does not mean that you must. I'm expecting you to provide a valid rationale for having the hard code besides the concept that it is permissible. The policies and guidelines in question are left open enough that your preference and mine would both be within policy, technically. There must be a logical reason, however, for the image to be hardcoded at a specific size (at the expense of those users who have different resolutions than your computer does, per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Resolution), and you have not provided one. I've explained my reasonings why it is preferable to not hard code it, and your ony responses have been to repeat your stance that policy is on your side. Since your arguments haven't been thusly logical, I offered you a link to help you out. If you'd like to interpret that at uncivil, then I'll interperate your responses as gaming the system. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever hot response Signaleer may have to Bahamut's fairly calm restatement—I don't want to see it. Let's call this one a done deal and leave off. Train your guns elsewhere, men. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Your template seems to have resolved the situation fairly well. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 04:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is that there's no good image syntax within Wikipedia for dealing with a somewhat wide image such as the German shepherd on the tank. There's the |upright| code for tall photos and the |Wide image| code for panoramas but nothing like |landscape| or whatever for "kind of wide" ones. There is one syntax that is supposed to allow the image to scale up and down, depending on user preferences, and that is the combination of |thumb| with |upright=x| which I will try out in the article, with x equal to '2'. Let me know if that works for you guys. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked at it with a few different resolutions. It looks OK on smaller ones, but on my native res, 1400x1050, the lead image is 600 pixels wide! I'd be OK with this as a matter of practicality, but this is certainly not with the MOS... unless there is something I missed? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I didn't try it with your larger resoltion, so I didn't see how it would take over. :( ...I'm trying out the syntax |upright=1.5| instead, and I'm going to throw a template at the article to limit how much of the table of contents is displayed at the top. Again, let me know if this works okay. Extended image syntax codes are found here: WP:EIS. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems to work well. I'd be interested to see what kind of template you have up your sleeve, however. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothin' up ma sleeve... <grin> The template I used to make the table of contents get smaller was {{TOClimit|limit=2}} which stands for Table Of Contents limit, limiting the display of section headings to only the ones with 2 consecutive equals signs—the major headings. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs more historical images[edit]

Cool pic, but not quite what is needed.

Great article, but the earlier portions on war dog history could really use some pics. There have to be some old engravings, tapestries, paintings, which show war dogs in use. I thought I'd seen a classic one of the conquistadors, but it turns out it's actually an execution of Panamanians executed by Balboa for homosexuality. Not quite the same as military usage. If anyone recalls seeing online a good image of war dogs being used by Romans, Irish, Normans, etc. that'd be awesome. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In the reference to Marathon, the picture in question is The Battle of Marathon by Panaenus. http://poieinkaiprattein.org/uploads/images/marathon/Marathon%20battle%20sketch%202.jpg best i could find. gmipTalk13:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"killed" or "euthanized" is a more neutral word than "destroyed"[edit]

In either connotation, "destroyed" implies either that the animals were purely equipment(the military standpoint) and being destroyed like an airplane or tank, or were killed violently or in some way that would connect negative emotions to the killings. Either one of these meanings violates the NPOV.

"Killed" would be a more neutral term to refer to ending the life of a living creature(anyone wanna argue that dogs aren't living?) in any fashion, be it through physical killing, starvation, eaten by Vietnamese, and would also include "humane" killings through euthanasia.

"Euthanized" would be an alternate term but I understand that many of the dogs were killed in way other than euthanasia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attwell (talkcontribs) 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-tank dogs[edit]

Should the article on anti-tank dogs be merged with this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog

Abandoned?[edit]

Traditionally, these dogs were either Euthanized or abandoned after their military operation was terminated. In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a law that allowed these dogs to be adopted.

By "abandoned", does it mean they are released to become feral or stray dogs? Not a nice thing to do to either the dogs or the ecosystems, and certainly not the kind of retirement I would expect for "war heroes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.210 (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thkidx (talkcontribs) 22:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)