This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog bite article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Dog bite.
|
Diane Whipple was an example of an incident, so can this page have it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:D531:3909:7FA1:2D09 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The article often blames human survivors for being attacked. The attitude is widespread elsewhere, and there is pressure not to show fear, and blame if we do show the natural fear or if we run away, but that's no excuse for the same attitude here. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
@Doc James: I don't understand why you think my citation was not relevant. Your edit summary when you reverted my addition simply said "Not a suitable source". Diff: [1] However, Psychology Today is consider a reliable source in general and this article was written by someone who conducted a study on that exact subject ("in 1996 I conducted a study of over 6000 people" and "Such dog breeds are often labeled as vicious." etc., etc. followed by "A total of 166 owners of high risk dogs were compared with 189 owners of low risk dogs. The high risk dog owners had nearly 10 times more criminal convictions than other dog owners."). I added the citation to support the wiki text of "These breeds are more frequently owned by people involved in crime." Doc James, what do you think is "not suitable"? Nomopbs (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Illogic has no place in Wikipedia. The primary-secondary source guidelines in Wikipedia (WP:MEDRS or regular) are somewhat amorphous and require some analysis of the situation in which they are being used, so let's use some logic here. (See Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources for concepts showing the amorphic nature of a single source document as sometimes being primary and sometimes secondary depending on how it is being used.)
On the other hand, the abstract [4] of the actual study clearly supports the text in the Dog bite article, because it says: "Findings revealed vicious dog owners reported significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners. Vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy. Study results suggest that vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance."
See Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources where it discusses when primary sources are preferred over secondary, and where it discusses overlap of primary and secondary in a single source. And even if you still think the Forensics study is primary, the AVMA is too. Which citation is more valuable to support the sentence "These breeds are more frequently owned by people involved in crime."
There are a lot of duplicate sentences/content in this article. All of the numbers and percentages quoted ought to have a year or time period added in the content because they cover a wide range of years. Much in this article was added in a hodgepodge manner. For example, the 4.5–4.7 million statistic is quoted several times from multiple sources of several different years (some are missing years in the citation). Surely the number hasn't been static/stable for over a decade, and surely the number originates from a single source. Pick a source, pick a year, go with that, standardise it across the article. The paragraph about the Patronek study mentioned under 'Cause|Breeds' is obtuse/incomprehensible. Platonk (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)