Talk:Police dog

message: A very poorly defined topic. it's hard to list all police dogs that have been used in law enforcement. Sources like Dogbreeds.net seem to be rather unreliable and have arbitrary inclusion criteria. Could be merged into a paragraph or two at Police dog pretty easily. Eddie891  Talk Work  18:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[List of police dog breeds]] into [[Police dog]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Dog Section and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Dog Section until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dog Section" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I removed the following excerpt from the "United States Supreme Court decisions" section of the article:
This decision did not reach the Supreme Court and was decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The information might still have some merit, it's a court case relevant to the subject matter after all, but it's out of place in a subsection marked Supreme Court when it wasn't actually decided there. I couldn't find a good place to integrate it in the above section, but maybe someone with more experience might. Askarion 💬●✒️ 13:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''United States v. Sharp'' 

message: Reading through this article, I'm surprised there isn't a 'Criticism' section, even if it's only one of modest size that starts out representing only the US. A brief search brought up the following potential sources:
* A 2021 news article in Vice;
* A 2021 investigative by Inside Edition;
* A 2020 opinion piece in the Washington Post – and though WP:NEWSBLOG does apply, there are links within the piece to other sources, including:
**a Star Tribune piece on a six-year review of apprehension dogs in St Paul, which reported that they were "routinely used on nonviolent offenders who were nearly always fleeing or hiding instead of threatening harm or displaying weapons";
** an ABC piece on the use of Tampa Bay resident's taxes to pay for police dog settlements, totalling $1.8 million between 2016–2019;
** and a 2013 LA Weekly piece reporting on the disparity of the application of apprehension dogs to Black and Latino suspects by the LA Sheriff's Department – in 2012, 90% of all apprehension dog bites were sustained by Black and Latino suspects; in the first half of 2013,  apprehension dog bites were sustained by Black and Latino suspects, and this is after "the number of Latinos bitten by LASD dogs increased 30 percent from 2004 to 2012 [...] for African Americans the increase during that period was 33 percent". These numbers are taken from the department's own reporting.
And this is only a brief, cursory look; there's clearly more research that could be done. I genuinely am surprised that no Criticism section exists in this article. There's clearly an open and notable space for it.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ( me!) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you/we can find more of a global consensus on the topic, there's definitely room for a criticism section. These six sources should do fine. The most common issue brought up is the disproportionately high amount of incidents involving police dogs "being set on" people of color or used in otherwise nonviolent situations, which is also a big focal point in the Police brutality in the United States article (possible common link). Askarion 💬●✒️ 00:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm surprised there isn't a 'Criticism' section