Talk:Human-baiting

Article is mostly worthless

Aside from the introduction, the remainder of the article is worthless. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Worthless" for what reasons? Are the extracts from (apparently) contemporary sources not genuine? The illustrations appear authentic to me, and the books referred to are both available on Amazon. I'm not saying that the article isn't a candidate for deletion, but I think it's up to you to explain _why_ it should be deleted. Tevildo 10:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite is a well known sock puppet of User:Hpuppet and was banned sometime ago. He spammed all the baiting article with similiar stuff. This editor needs his account blocked AGAIN ! 70.51.198.36 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedic treatment of the subject to say "the subject exists," and then tell some stories. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet or not, I agree with him. This article is terrible. It shouldn't be deleted though....actually, when did Hipocrite mention anything about deleting it?

Rewrite tag

Articles can always use some tweaking but a full rewrite is not required for this well researched article. SirIsaacBrock 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The whole article needs to be re-organized. Right now it's like baseball containing only descriptions of three single regular season games in three disparate years.

Were there trends in popularity or practice? How about how it was viewed by different segments of the public? None of this is addressed in the current format. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Magazine article?

This reads like a satirical magazine article, more of the sort of parody you'd read in The Onion than in a serious encyclopedia. I'm flagging it with the magazine flag. Also, if the sources so freely quoted are copyrighted they need to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC). Sorry, this forgetting to sign is my biggest newby goof here. Trilobitealive 03:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove +tag - the citations and quotations add value and support the topic of the article. Headphonos 11:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes reality seems absurd. But let's remember a biological reality -- that except for good behavior, dogs are typical large carnivores. Dogs are adept defenders, and self-defense by any large carnivore is brutal. Dogs have been trained to prey upon helpless people, most infamously in Nazi concentration camps.

It's up to us humans to keep Man's Best Friend as a friend, and to not make an enemy out of it. It is one of the worst enemies that a man could ever face. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture

The British biopic Bronson (film) features a scene in which the titular character participates in human-baiting.

I wonder if this information would improve the article. I only know this because I've seen the movie. It not clear, as this movie has both factual recreations and surrealistic symbolic scenes, the man who the movie is about actually did human-bait.

I don't know if human-baiting has ever been featured in any other popular culture, but staarting a popular culture section might be a way to find out, because others might contribute other items. Chrisrus (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Date of "Gentleman and the Bull Dog"

I note that the sourced (verifiable) text gives 1807 as the year of this event. However, the illustration from the same source (The Sporting Magazine) is captioned "circa 1801". Perhaps someone with access to the source can clear this detail up. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish? But why?

What's wrong with the sentence: If the dog had not been pulled away [...].
Is the sentence: Had the dog not been pulled away [...] more correct? The first structure is more frequently used than the latter:
"If you had told me" Google: 383 000   Google books: 260 000
"Had you told me"    Google: 297 000  Google books: 45 000
85.193.235.135 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Both sentences carry the same meaning, but the second version is simpler. Hence, your claim that it has "sophisticated syntax" is utter rubbish. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The syntax without if is really sophisticated for non native speakers. You claim, that the second version is simpler. Are you serious? Under your way of thinking we should "simplify" millions of sentences in all articles. But even if my comment really was "utter rubbish" - so what of it? Was my edit "utter rubbish" too? Did you revert my comment or my edit? Can you tell the difference? The syntax with "if" is almost six times more frequently used in Google books, and is much easier to understand for non native speakers and kids. 85.193.235.135 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You hadn't brought up the fact that it would be easier for an ESL reader to understand. You should have said that upfront. Although he spoke too harshly, Parrot is right that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the "Had I known that you were coming..." construction. Furthermore, I also worry about setting the precedent that the "if I had known..." construction should replace it whenever possible across Wikipedia, on the grounds that it's easier for people who don't know English very well to understand. If we say yes here, what's to stop someone from setting a search-and-replace bot to hunt them all down and revert them. It's a very nice form that's understood by English speakers everywhere.

On the other hand, you might be right. If the "had I known" construction is confusing to those whose English isn't too good, why not help such people? We should only concern ourselves with the benefit of the reader, this above all, do we not all agree? All our work is for the reader, not to stop the simplification of English that follows globalization. Right now, my opinion is that this edit should be restored. I'll wait an appropriate amount of time and then do so. Chrisrus (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your edits and your rationale are utter rubbish. This is an English article on the English Wikipedia. A poor understanding of English is not an excuse for poor writing. But what really outlines your stupidity is that the changes you've made have been to a quote. We do not modify the syntax or grammar of quotes to suit our preferences. So stop it. Parrot of Doom 08:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Parrot, this is a WP:CIVIL violation on your part. Also, "if you had told me" is not "poor English". Calm down and make your case in non-emotional language. Chrisrus (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about your civility policy and I suggest that if you want to chastise someone you try again. Elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the edit because the logic and reasoning for the edit seems better than that against it. Chrisrus (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And I am about to revert it - as PoD states, it is a quote (added in January 2006) and quotes are given verbatim. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Now, there's some good reasoning. Too bad no one just simply made that point in the first place. Chrisrus (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I made the point above. Too bad you didn't read it. Parrot of Doom 21:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

> A poor understanding of English is not an excuse for poor writing

Certainly, but show me that "poor writing" in my edit. Do you mean the "if I had known..." construction?

> But what really outlines your stupidity...

Lack of arguments turns into personal attacks.

> ...the changes you've made have been to a quote.

A quote without any introduction, colon or quotation marks? Admittedly there is something like block quotation, but this is not the case here. The indentation per se is not enough to make a quote. In the same article you can find this real quote:

The following is extracted from a contemporary report:
   "An arbite (man and dog fight) took place [...]"

On a final note, to paraphrase Chrisrus: There's absolutely nothing wrong with the "if I had known..." construction. But we now have a precedent, that it should be replaced with the "had I known" construction as the simpler one. A good, efficient bot would be useful... 85.193.235.135 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a direct quotation. You can't re-word a direct quotation, even if doing so improved it, because then it wouldn't be a direct quotation anymore, but a paraphrase. That's all that should have been said in the first place, not all this other irrelevant stuff. Chrisrus (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If it really is a quote (direct or not), then our discussion is pointless because a quote should remain intact by definition. The problem is that all we have is an indented block of text, without any attributes specific to a quote. Take into consideration that a block indentation can be made also to emphasise something. But given your reasoning any indented text can be a quote, or maybe even must be a quote. I wonder how far you could go with this? ;-) 85.193.235.135 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a direct quote and should not be altered. IQ125 (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks like a decent quote, so I have no objections. 85.193.235.135 85.193.235.135 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)