Talk:Onion (dog)

Importation of material from Wikipedia (or other sources)
Hi Leslie,

I have just looked at the article and although it is greatly expanded, much of the material comes directly from the Wikipedia article of the same name.

Here is the Editorial Council ruling about this sort of situation from a year or so ago:

Importation of articles
The importation of articles copied from other sources, in particular from other Internet encylopedias such as Wikipedia, is not allowed.

The only exceptions to this general rule are
 * articles written originally almost entirely by the Citizen who imports them and who, in addition, is also an active contributor, and
 * specific articles that are explicitly accepted by the Editorial Council.

Remark: Of course, any available source&mdash;including Wikipedia&mdash;may be used in a professional manner to find information and inspiration.

There is a proposal in the form of a referendum to modify this rule in the upcoming Election, for which balloting begins tomorrow. In the meantime, I doubt if the article, as presently written, will be allowed to remain, although I am not sure what precisely should be done about it in the near future. Best, Hayford Peirce 18:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am in fact the creator of the Wikipedia article, using a different user name there. The Citizendium article is the complete article. That in Wikipedia is greatly reduced in size. Unfortunately, as we all know, the search engines pick up WP with greater efficiency so as much as I hated to I had to put an article there. Hopefully people will find the Citizendium article if they want more extensive information. Leslie Morris Golden 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Donation section
I have deleted the entire Donation section. This is clearly inappropriate material to be found in an encyclopedia article. The fact that you had included it in the other material calls into question whether the entire article is not an "advocacy-driven" promotion for a specific agenda of the author. As a member of the Editorial Council, I can tell you that the Council is now considering this matter. Hayford Peirce 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Of course, the language as written was inappropriate.  Concerning my "agenda," I am deeply committed to saving this dog and the literally hundreds of thousands of other dogs, cats, and other pets and wildlife every year whose euthanasia is solely the result of government bureaucrats protecting themselves against what they euphemistically call "liability."  That means, of course, if they don't follow the letter of the law they will lose their jobs.  This effort, because of its international scope, if successful, will lead, and has already begun to lead, to municipalities rewriting their animal control laws to err on the side of compassion rather than job security.  If successful in saving Onion, we have already been approached by two significant publishers to discuss the history and evolution of animal laws in this country, a burgeoning field with a recently organized group in the American Bar Assn.  If the dog is not saved, however, there will be no revision of animal control laws, no book, and no saving those hundreds of thousands of pets.  Governments, specifically the City of Henderson and their city attorneys have unlimited taxpayer funds at their disposal.  We estimate the city attorneys' office has already spent, in six weeks of litigation, over $50,000.  We have nothing except $10 and $20 donations.  Those involved in getting this dog moved to a sanctuary are doing everything we can think of to keep that stream of donations coming.  We are currently more than $700 in the red, and the attorneys who are working pro bono have dug into their own pockets for thousands, all court fees.  In the interests of appropriateness, I welcome any suggestions you and your associates have as to how to broach the subject of donations in the article without violating guidelines.  Thanks for your continued concern in this matter.  Hopefully, with all respect, I hope that you and those you love will consider making a small donation in the interests of compassion and my guiding philosophy as a humanist and professional astronomer, "We don't own the Earth, we simply share it." Leslie Morris Golden 00:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that, as originally written, the article is clearly advocacy hence inappropriate for an encyclopedia. However, the case appears to be important in the sense of testing laws and setting precedents, so I think having an article on the topic is worthwhile. I have added some text to try to improve the balance, stating a view diametrically opposed to what was being advocated. Sandy Harris 03:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanked page
Leslie, the original author, has now blanked the page. Question one is whether he'd care to explain or justify that.

Question two is what to do next. There are arguments for just reversing the blanking and restoring the text that was there, for deleting the article entirely, or for converting it to a "lemma" (I detest the term, but it seems to be what we use for the class.) article consisting of only a definition.

Ideally, I'd like someone more neutral than either Leslie or I write a brief summary article instead. Volunteers? Sandy Harris 03:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On WP, the article has been nominated for deletion as non-notable. Sandy Harris 07:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that the author blanked the page as soon as you added material that he did not like proves that he was only interested in it as an activist. However, I think that a matter-of-fact article (omitting irrelevant details) seems justified. One has to bear in mind, that this case is not yet finished. (Finally, another title may be better, too.) In order to avoid a blank page I have inserted a brief explanation. --Peter Schmitt 12:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The comments added to "balance" the coverage, which are simply editorial opinion, belonged on the Talk page or in an article on Canine Euthanasia. They did not belong on the article, which was highly sourced and verifiable. Instead of getting into an edit war, which pollute WP and led me to quit WP, I decided to just remove the article. If someone wants to put it back WITHOUT the unsourced, unverifiable, editorial opinion, that's fine with me. But I am too involved with trying to remove ignorance from the Earth to get involved in an edit war. Leslie Morris Golden 12:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Summing up the fact that there are two opposite argumentations is not "editorial opinion", and does not start an editing war. And "highly sourced and verifiable" material alone does not guarantee an unbiased article: It all depends on the choice of sources! --Peter Schmitt 12:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think what I added "belonged on the Talk page", here it is:


 * "To some, the question is extremely simple. The dog killed a child, so obviously the animal must die. After all, in many areas, a dog can be shot for attacking sheep, let alone a human. It might be debatable whether all dogs that bite should die, but there is no question when a human is killed. To animal welfare advocates, however, this dog should be protected."


 * Granted, I may have stated that view a bit too forcefully, but in my view it is absolutely necessary that it be in the article. Of course, so should the arguments the other way, that this is not in fact a vicious dog. Sandy Harris 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Will work on this later but I have to cook dinner
Will work on this later but I have to cook dinner. Mary Ash 23:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that this should not become a collection of statements, reporting each single step, but an article that sums up the important issues and arguments (in a readable form). --Peter Schmitt 01:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter Schmitt I am working on this article while cooking dinner and taking care of my family. I will polish and edit as I go along. Thanks for your support :-) Mary Ash 01:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mary -- bon appetit! But TAKE YOUR TIME! There is no deadline here.  The article is underway.  We can take two months to finish it off -- correctly!  Don't be rushed! Hayford Peirce 02:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A good start, Mary. Bravo! Sandy Harris 02:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you one and all. I would have preferred to write off the main site, but since the article was started...you watched me research, write and edit in real time. Feel free to do what you want with this, as I am taking a break. I may go do some more research on Bing as I used Google. Thanks once again for your kind words. Also, British law is what is normally used by most US states in determining who owns a dog. British law says dogs are property of their owners while cats are considered feral. That's why dog owners can be held responsible for any damage or injuries caused by a dog. Cat owners don't have to worry about that.Mary Ash 03:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I had no idea about the distinction between the two beasties! Hayford Peirce 03:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is now -- from Citizendium!
take a look Hayford Peirce 03:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! That's precious! Thanks you so much for your professional edits. As to cats and dogs: Dogs are property cats are not. That's why you can sue if some kills your dog but not your cat. You can also be sued if your dog destroys property but if you own a cat you are free-and-clear. It goes back to British Common Law. BTW I have owned and loved both cats and dogs. Right now I am owned by a cat. Mary Ash 04:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)