Talk:Hog-dog rodeo

message: * I've just cleaned up the article to remove a few passionate comments that had been sneaked in among the words. It's still not entirely clean, as I lack knowledge concerning a few of the claims in this article, so feel free to give it a check-over and fix whatever problems you find. <<Thanks for giving us the go ahead as though anyone would actually need that to edit wikipedia>> I think that shows more than anything how confused you are about what the point of wikipedia truly is.
:* If you lack knowledge concerning claims in this article, then what the hell are you editing it for? And the only passionate comments in this piece of trash are those made by those that would recognize animal rights in place of human rights!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.47.249 (talk • contribs) 
This article has largely been edited by those that don't know anything about what hog dogging is actually about the entire article is a problem since even a controversial name is used. Hog dogging is the correct term, not baiting. Baiting has connotations of deliberate cruelty which is not the case with the (very necessary) sport and hunting style of hog dogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.118.128 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabotage

message: * The first paragraph states that "major injuries to either animal is not common..."
I have my doubts about this. Now, I'd be the first to admit that I know nothing about hog baiting,but logic suggests that injuries should be fairly common. Should this be changed? My research seems to confirm it, so for now I'm changing "The dogs are outfitted with kevlar chest and neck armor, and major injuries to either animal is not common in any case." to "The dogs are outfitted with kevlar chest and neck armor to guard against injury." Aya McCabre (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This person, Aya, is not claiming to be an expert about anything. She is a reader giving us her reaction. You may use evidence to disagree with her, and you may use reason. You are not allowed to launch personal attacks. You, sir, may be correct about everything you say. But I have deleted your last comment as a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOATTACK. Chrisrus (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy?

message: This comment: "Hog dogging is the hunting style which is far more popular than the boar trials will ever be and is very vital to controlling the explosion of wild pigs in texas and the deep south, let there be a hog dogging article, nerdlits. Also calling this "baiting" when that's nothing of the kind doesn't make some sort of political point, that only points out how petty you are, whoever did that editing" was left in the article by someone who knows more about hog dogging than any of the other editors. Chrisrus (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment left in article moved here 

message: The immensely popular southern hunting style of hog dogging, which is the hunting style of countering wild boar populations using hunting dogs rather than hog dogging trials (erroneously referred to in this article under the politically motivated and incorrect ""hog baiting"") deserves an article. Could we please keep edits of this article and the other article that I suggest creating limited to the experts that would actually have the skill to even put a catch vest on properly. I know that the southern type of people (read "redneck" if you will) who go out for this hunting style aren't exactly well represented among the most powerful thousand or so of Wikipedia's editors and so their views are not going to be well displayed, but that doesn't mean that in the vacuum of knowledge created by that fact that the idiotic, self-centered, and politically motivated views of those not in the know should try to fill the void. Remember the early days of the evolution article on Wikipedia, this article shouldn't be payback on those people.
:This article was written for the most part by such people, but it was created by someone as a mere sub-stub to be about hog-baiting, so now it conflates the two. You are not as good as you seem to think you are at reading the minds of the people who contributed to this article, and have baselessly attributed motivations to them that they did not have. Chrisrus (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOG DOGGING 

message: The problem is, all we pretty much do here on Wikipedia is to basically report to the readers what's available in things that meet this description: WP:RS. If you use Google's "Scholar" for "hog-dogging" however, all Google Scholar returns here now is this:
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=44+U.+Rich.+L.+Rev.+185&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=bf9572821348ebd88fa83decacc55adb .
I found it for in full and for free by doing a regular Google search, here: http://lawreview.richmond.edu/animal-law/.
It's a 2009 University of Richmond Law Review Association article entitled "ANIMAL LAW" from 2009summarizing laws in Virginia, mostly stuff about the techincal definition of stuff like "adequate water" and the fact that in Virginia cockfighting is a misdemeanor if you don't charge admission, but a felony is you do. Stuff like that. Point being, it's not about hog-dogging and isn't written by an expert on hog-dogging in detail, just an expert on Virginia animal law. But it does includes a definition of hog-dogging, and it says that hog-dogging is "an animal fight that involves putting a hog in a ring with pit bull." So, in Virginia, if your event is just bay dogs, that's ok and not illegal, but if you use catch dogs in some kind of "event", which I donno but I think is probably something people come to watch, it's called "hog-dogging". So at least officially in Virgina, "hog-dogging" events are illegal, but bay dog events aren't concidered "hog-dogging". That's just one definition, maybe. Maybe elsewhere, you don't need catch dogs for it to be hog dogging.
That's all I could find from peer-reviewed scholarly journals tonight by using Google Scholar. Chrisrus (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only thing on Google Scholar 

message: I don't know how WP:RS this, http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/hog_dogging/ dictionary site is, but check out the sources that it uses. It's pretty interesting, don't miss the extensive notes after the definition I'm sure you won't like. Chrisrus (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found this for you 

message: This article, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-05-hog-dogging_x.htm, seems to be usable. Although it first gives the Anti-hog-dogging case, it does also give the hog-doggers their chance to make the case that this is not the same as boar-baiting and takes a pretty neutral tone when the reporter is speaking. We could probably use it to cite some of the things in this article. And please, before you tell me that it's not good enough, at least I'm trying to cite some of the stuff you've added to the article. I don't see you helping. The only citation you've provided isn't even about hog-dogging but about the feral hog problem. Don't get me wrong, it's useable for that one statement but everything else is uncited and I feel like I'm trying to help you and keep this hog-dogging article and so you should thank me for even an imperfect citation as you've got like almost nothing. So again, have you got any association manual or rulebook from some governing authority of hog-dogging or some "Pig Hunter" magazine article about the arena events or anything with any kind of authority? YOu're the expert here, not me, you should be able to come up with something. As it stands, anybody could just come along and delete the whole thing and there couldn't be a damn thing we could do about it so move quickly with some citations or you're going to lose the whole thing, and it won't necessarily be because, as you will claim, that a bunch of snobby northern liberals hate you, but simply because we've got a poorly cited article and so there's no way we as simple Wikipedians can check up on anything. Please agree that we can't allow uncited article like this for long or else people would say that we write articles based on the say-so of some nameless faceless credentialless username who seemed to know what he was talking about. So I ask you again, should we use this USA today article to cite what we can of the article or can you come up with anything better? Chrisrus (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need the blessing of anyone to use an obvious, proper reliable source like that in an article. Personal opinions or unconfirmed expertise do not trump reliable sources here and never will. It is obvious that the term hog-dogging, along with hog dog rodeo, is used to describe these events. If it also used to describe the practice of actual hunting in the field of nuisance hogs that can also be mentioned in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also note that the article cites a professional hunter from Texas, not exactly a bastion of Yankee liberalism, in addition to a historian, the chief of wildlife for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and several others from the pro-hog-dogging camp. It looks to me like this reporter did a very thorough job and tried their best to give all sides their say when composing this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA today article? 

message: #http://www.dallasobserver.com/2006-08-24/news/high-on-the-hog/full/
#http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/archives/baying-dogs-against-hogs-for-charity/article_d7494b5f-31dd-5258-988c-b52786afb996.html
#http://www.houstonpress.com/2006-08-24/news/hog-wild/
:Just started going over these, the first one is really good, describing the history of wild hog control and its association with hog-dogging events, and explaining the difference between bay dog events and those that use catch dogs. It also mentions that some of the profits from these events are donated to charities. I think we are finally on out way to being able to build a balanced, neutral article on this subject, good work! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  possibly useful articles