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)

I think the text in the "background" section adequately covers this topic. It highlights the advantages monkeys brought to their fights with dogs. The text should be cited with History of Fighting Dogs. I'm going to remove the "Intellect and Instinct" section. Darkspots (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph you deleted is the text citation from "History of Fighting Dogs", so why are you deleting, what you state should be there?? Chessy999 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is not deleted. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Sennen goroshi: Chessy999 is a sockpuppet of SirIsaacBrock, and was blocked indefinitely, so don't expect an answer. 67.169.127.176 (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of article is original or weak research

There's a good amount of confusion here, since neither the Wiki editors nor their sources have nearly sufficient knowledge.

What kind of "monkey"? Would most sources know the difference between a chimpanzee, a baboon, and a gorilla in 1799? (The Wiki article calls one a "Simien", but check the Wiki page, that covers a huge range of body sizes.)

Are the sources referring to highly trained monkeys or not...to tame or wild ones? There's a little "dog owner myopia" here. Some monkeys are much more intelligent and trainable than dogs. To be anything more than anecdotal, the type of training the monkey received would be important.

Then, let's talk about drugs. Would anybody recognize or be able to test for "monkey drugging" in 1799? How about dog drugging?

If you've done any human martial arts, you know that it's possible for a beginner to "get lucky" and beat someone who's quite a lot better. Without a large number of samples, it's impossible to tell what meaning the anecdotes in the article have.

So basically, the sources are anecdotal, vague, uninformed, and unreliable. (The artists can't even draw the animals recognizably, consider the monkey in "The Bulldog and the Monkey".) Why is this material given more than a passing mention in an encyclopedia?

67.169.127.176 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I take the opposite view, the sources are mentioned, images are available and the descriptions are quite clear, a very good Wiki article. Have you even read the books mentioned at the bottom of the article? They are certainly not original research. Green Squares (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Say what?, where is the source other than a contemporary book?. and about the pictures, they are not needing a picture taken by a witness, neither there are a safety that the picture are indeed related with the real event. --201.222.135.56 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)--201.222.135.56 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

I wonder, CW, what value very long first-person, archaic descriptions have in this article. Could you tell me exactly what you think they add? Hipocrite (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Re factual dispute

It appears that there's a dispute over the name and dating of all of the images in this article, per [1]. Could someone please provide source for all of the disputed content - if sources are not provided, I will remove all disputed content. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Hipocrite, I was the original author of the article and the citations can be found here:

• Fleig, D. (1996). History of Fighting Dogs. Pg 112 - 116 T.F.H. Publications. ISBN 0-7938-0498-1
• Homan, M. (2000). A Complete History of Fighting Dogs. Pg 105 - 109 Howell Book House Inc. ISBN 1-58245-128-1

I already advised you of this years ago and yet you continue the vandalize the article out of spite. This is not Wikipedias motto of working together to build a better encyclopedia. NOW, if you cannot confirm the names and dates are wrong, why would you delete them? This is blatant vandalism. WritersCramp (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I confirmed at least two of your names and dates were fabricated. Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, for such a dire article this is well watched. What were you thinking of deleting? Here an attribution from the BM for the opening image: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=1545323&partid=1, as I have it to hand. Yomangani^talk 13:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the caption to reflect the reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The BM also sourced the caption on Tom & Jerry sporting their Blunt on the phenomenon Monkey Jacco Macacco at the Westminster Pit. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Landseer etching has the date in the etched in the plate. Not sure how much more reliable we can get with that, but I'm not going to spend any more time on what should be uncontroversial changes - the quote comes from Life in London, a fiction, and the Cruikshank (actually signed as by Issac and George, not just George, though how much input Issac had is up for debate) plate is an illustration from the same book; the titles are appended to the prints in most cases. Artworks go in italics according to the MoS. That is me finished here, though somebody might like to work on the woeful description of Jacco Maccaco lifted almost wholesale from Lennox ("from the species of Simian dominated by the Gibbon, which sit with their fore-paws upon the ground" - very 21st century) Yomangani^talk 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that WritersCramp is banned from this topic. I'm reviewing the article to see what needs to be done to bring it into compliance. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, I am not banned. You should find out the facts before spreading untruths, but that wouldn't be your style. Are you still that upset that I found your sockpuppet account WritersCramp (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)