Talk:Monkey-baiting

"Conclusion" section

With these descriptions of 'Dogs versus Monkeys', we see that the higher intellect combined with a healthy instinct and fighting experience made the monkey into an extraordinarily dangerous opponent for the fighting dog. It is amazing how many owners would send their dogs to almost certain death. This strikes me as unwiki. The final statement connotes a personal opinion - a POV. I personally do not find it "amazing" that people would commit sporting dogs to violence and injury for the sake of making money. The first sentence/paragraph merely sums up the article, which is what the introductory paragraph is for. I do not believe the omission of the section constitutes vandalism. - JustSomeKid 21:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's fix the article, then.

It seems to me that with the indefinite block of the troublesome user who had previously disrupted this article, substantial progress could be made to make it encyclopedic. Tevildo, you have reverted in text that I find to be wholly inappropriate original research ("The monkey proved to be a formidable opponent for the canine warrior; owners and handlers of fighting dogs frequently underestimated the monkey's abilities. The monkey's intelligence, dexterity, unorthodox fighting style and gameness proved to be overwhelming for many canine opponents.") and long rambling stories about individual, not notable fights between monkeys and dogs. Is there any way you could add context about the sport and get rid of the trivia? I have removed the obvious OR, but the article needs help. Thanks. -- Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know if you can/should edit

[ My apologies if this is the wrong area to ask .... ] I found the article quite interesting, however it was clearly (to me at least) written in a ... somewhat non-impartial fashion. If one were to take the initiative to rewrite the article, how do they know whether or not they've done a satisfactory job? Do you simply edit the entire article and put your new rewrite up ... or do you submit it for approval first? I've seen plenty of spots where I could possibly be of aid - however I'd certainly like to go about doing things right. --Kyanwan 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You might like to try How to edit a page for some simple guidelines. :] -- Happy Wiki-ing. Shaybear 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Monkey v. Dog v. Wikipedia

Monkey v. Dog v. Wikipedia, July 24, 2007, mentions this article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely worth a look. Thanks! -- Talamus 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamus (talk • contribs)

dispute

My opinion is that a summary/conclusion/whatever you rename it as, is not in line with wikipedia articles, wikipedia should be displaying facts, not unproven conclusions.

If a writer has given his opinion (in the case in point it is nothing more than an opinion) then of course you can quote the writer, but make sure it is shown to be a quote, and make sure it is known to be just the writers opinion.

If something has not been proven, then don't make it seem as if it has.

I would have thought the comments relating to this issue, on this talk page in the past, would have made it obvious that consensus was against the inclusion of the section - but I guess that consensus is not as important to other editors as it is to me.

So in short, consensus says get rid of it. At best if you really must keep it, make sure it is displayed as a quote, so people know it is merely an opinion, not a proven fact. I would suggest that the writer has never seen a monkey VS dog fight, so it is just an opinion. Come back with a scientific study, relating to monkey vs dog, and I will of course be happy for it to be displayed as a fact. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are deleting cited information, it is not opinion, it is a referenced entry. Deleting this type of entry is considered vandalism. Chessy999 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)