NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Onion (dog)

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition A dog that animal rights activists are attempting to save after he killed a child. [d] [e]

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:

Template:Motion

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—including Wikipedia—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 [1] 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)
Presumably there's also an argument that, if you don't believe in capital punishment for people, you shouldn't execute animals either. Peter Jackson 09:30, 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)
This was a general remark, Mary, not addressed at you. And it meant the final result, not intermediate stages. --Peter Schmitt 10:13, 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 someone 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)
You mean English, not British. Scotland has always had its own legal system, originally based on Roman law (like Louisiana), but it's imported a lot of English ideas over the centuries, which might include this. The basic distinction is as you say, though the details are probably more complicated. Peter Jackson 09:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Peter. Around here it's referred to as British Common Law. BTW I've been doing genie research and discovered I have a long and illustrious heritage going back to the Bruce's of Scotland and later my family moved along to Ireland. I also discovered that I have a family connection with the Sweetwater Mansion in Alabama. I hope to visit Scotland and Ireland some day...if I ever have the money. Mary Ash 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Terminology quibble

The article talks of "whether the dog should be euthanized" and "Vicious dogs according to Nevada state law are euthanized ...". Is "euthanized" the right term?

It is certainly correct for putting down a hopelessly sick or injured animal; that is the primary meaning of euthanasia, mercy killing. Killing this dog would be closer to executing a criminal than to a mercy killing, so I'm not sure it should be called euthanasia. For that matter, nor should killing a pound animal that no-one adopts within a set time limit. Calling those killings "euthanasia" strikes me as a rather slimy euphemism; there is no mercy involved so why pretend?

On the other hand. "euthanized" may be the correct legal term, in which case we have to use it. Sandy Harris 05:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia is the term most animal care professionals use. When I volunteered at our local humane society, that's the term I had heard used when caring for a sick, injured or abandoned animal. As to euthanizing an abandoned animal at the shelter: It is a mercy killing as someone abandoned the animal leaving it to die a slow death. I'd have to check the exact details but most feral cats live about two years in the wild. During that time they are exposed to disease and accidents. Never mind the chance of being attacked and killed by other critters such as coyotes. As to Onion: Onion killed an innocent child. While Onion may not have the intelligence to determine right from wrong; Onion's breeding (instinct) should have prevented him from killing a child. Dogs do snap and bite when startled. Dogs like Onion should be euthanized to end the genetic line. It's not a matter of punishing the dog, but preventing further contributions to the gene pool. Mary Ash 14:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
If the goal is to end the genetic line, why not just castrate him? On the other hand, should related dogs be executed as well since they have similar genes?
Probably not in this article, but I think you could make a pretty good case that some breeds of dog do not belong in cities or should not be kept as pets. Tibetan mastiffs leap to mind; those beasts are large & fierce, perfect for guarding a nomad's camp but perhaps not elsewhere. On the other hand, for all I know the nomad kids play with them. On the third hand, Newfoundland dogs are enormous and labs large enough to kill but many people keep them as family pets so size is clearly not the only issue. Sandy Harris 06:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sandy it is common practice, and I do believe city ordinance, to have viscous dogs euthanized. The family signed over property rights to the City of Henderson and and animal control officials had the dog declared viscous. As within city law, the dog was scheduled for euthanasia because of this. It wasn't mentioned in the CZ article, but Onion had never shown any violence towards anyone until this incident, according to newspaper reports. In away this is good, as it seems Onion was a good, well behaved dog. On the other hand, this is not so good as most dogs have a "language" where they tell people around them they are going to become aggressive. See: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/how-to-train-a-dog1.htm It was not clearly stated in newspaper articles whether Onion had exhibited any language behaviors before the attack. It really makes no difference as the City of Henderson law clearly states what's to be done with viscous dogs. I do agree with this law as dogs are not humans, they are a companion animal, and based on current city ordinance Henderson officials have the right to euthanize Onion. Aleta can probably explain this better than I can, as she probably knows more about dogs than I do. I am more of a cat person. Mary Ash 16:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot resist. I nominate "viscous dogs" for typo of the week, not that I don't sometimes do things just as silly. Sandy Harris 01:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy for causing a chuckle. I never was a very good typist :-) Thank goodness I got that reporting gig. LOL! Mary Ash 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP article

Greetings Citizens.

Looks like this might be a drive-by article creation at both Wikipedia and Citizendium. It's been nominated for deletion over at Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That ita is Tom but at least WP "borrowed" from CZ. Sometimes the mouse can roar :-) Mary Ash 14:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete this page

There is no excuse for keeping this article. It covers a single instance of dubious iconic value. If there is to be an article on the laws or philosophy of how to handle pets accused of being a danger to society, that general article should be written, and this example might show up as a murky instance.

I hope it is removed. John R. Brews 14:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

John are you suggesting we ignore history because it doesn't quite fit what you believe is appropriate at Citizendium? Encyclopedias contains all kinds of minor and odd historical information. While this article may never be a "heavy hitter" in the long run this incident may have long-reaching historical and legal value. For now the situation is fluid and we do not what the future holds. I vote to keep the article for its historic value.Mary Ash 14:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Mary: What is the criterion for keeping this article? That it is a piece of "minor and odd historical information"? On that basis, CZ can be filled with trivia of momentary interest entertained briefly in any newspaper or by any talk show. Such a CZ does not fit with the concept of an encyclopaedia. John R. Brews 15:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
History is the recording of human events. If historians had decided to remove something because it was "minor" and did not fit their view of what history should be, there would have been a lot of history "forgotten". I can see it now: Let's not record or write about the Gutenberg press as it will not get anywhere, lets not write about computers as they will never amount to anything and while we are at it we will never, ever go to a paperless business. Approximately 30 years ago, I would have never dreamed that the newsroom I started in, and depended on a teletype for relaying immediate messages; and used computer terminals plus a Compugraphic typesetter; would not be completely paperless. The newspaper is now laid out on the computer and put to bed electronically. When I started it was still cut, paste and measured when it came to laying out. I sometimes miss the smell of hot wax and the old ruler. For now the article contains current facts and is well written. It shold be kept as it contains a snippet of human history. That's all I can state as I do not possess mystical powers to read the crystal ball to see what happens next. Mary Ash 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Mary: It may evolve in time that Onion (dog) will be found to have been a seminal event in the history of man, perhaps eclipsing the development of the Gutenberg press (no article yet) or maybe Twitter. However, if every piece of trivia is placed in CZ on the basis that CZ contributors cannot pretend to evaluate its future significance, CZ becomes a repository of trivia.
Some effort has to be made to evaluate, and if a case can be made that Onion (dog) has the potential to become a landmark, that case should be made rather than simply saying "we can't foresee the importance of events". In this case of Onion (dog), do you really see that happening? If so, please make the case. John R. Brews 15:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:UnindentJohn to remain civil I will post this comment from the Wikipedia page where this article is scheduled for deletion. "Strong Keep. Notability clearly established according to WP:GNG by over 150 newspaper print and website articles, including Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, and New York dailies, television and radio coverage in markets other than Nevada, articles on Huffington Post, and numerous Associated Press nationally-distributed articles.MadZarkoff 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)"

As Citizendium is desperately trying to stay noticed (let alone funded) it would behoove Citizendium to include some timely articles concerning current events that affect normal people. In the newspaper biz this would have been a top-of-the-fold story as it is human interest and deals with life altering events. It is not a dry article about chemistry or Shakespearean intricacies. If you want Citizendium to become relevant to the masses, then you need to include articles that interest and affect normal people. And as I posted this is a hot topic that's been covered by over 150 print and websites. Hopefully, having Onion the Dog included here might interest the Google search engine and might attract some new readers/contributors Mary Ash 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mary: I am alarmed that you find this simple discussion a test of your civility. That can be a sign that one is having difficulty expressing themselves.
At the moment, your argument for inclusion of this article is no longer its importance or potential importance to history, but that CZ should attempt to maintain interest by publishing items that will attract an audience. That is the criterion used by Entertainment Tonight and Inside Edition. It is too large a net for me. John R. Brews
I can express myself just fine and I do not need assistance from you to do so. What I do have problems with is the lack of understanding expressed by some concerning editorial content of fact-based news. It seems some Citizens do not understand the differences between hard news and soft news. Onion the Dog is a far cry from Entertainment Tonight or Inside Edition as neither show primarily features hard news. They are entertainment shows not news shows. Onion the Dog is a hard news article and not entertainment. Adding to the hard news are the following facts:
  • A child was mauled to death and local authorities wanted to euthanize the dog. (Would you consider the death of a child soft news?)
  • Out-of-state animal rescue officials are attempting to change Nevada law. (Have you ever heard of states rights?)
  • Numerous hard news agencies have covered this story making this an article of historical note.

As I have written this article is timely and places Citizendium on the forefront of providing accurate, neutral point-of-view articles of historical significance. Mary Ash 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mary: To say Onion (dog) "places Citizendium on the forefront of providing accurate, neutral point-of-view articles of historical significance" certainly is a stretch for me. I guess we'll have to see what others here think. John R. Brews 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I said earlier "Ideally, I'd like someone more neutral than either Leslie or I write a brief summary article instead. Volunteers?"
Mary seems to have volunteered & I think that is just fine.
As she points out, the case has had significant news coverage. Also, it raises some difficult issues both philosophical and legal. I think that makes it worth covering here. Sandy Harris 00:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't have started this article myself, but now that it's here, I think it should be kept, although with more editing, particularly trimming the factual stuff (dull to me) and expanding on the general picture.
I think it's fair to say that we are seeing a minor replay of some of the debates of several years ago: John is clearly an "exclusionist", whereas I am firmly in the "inclusionist" camp. If we had 50 million articles about trivial matters, that would be fine with me, as long as they were *quality* articles. Hayford Peirce 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hayford: Apparently you see this whole subject as an old saw. I don't know what constitutes a "quality" article as you see it, but apparently significance is not a determining factor. I suspect you'll get your wish for 50,000,000 trivial articles, as that is the path of least resistance: maybe a "quality" apple-pie story every year, a "quality" heart-breaking pet-story each year,...?? John R. Brews 20:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, John. I simply don't think that any particular article at CZ has to be "significant". After all, who defines significant? Your concept of it is probably quite different from mine. Years ago, when I first joined, I wrote an article about a British thriller short story, The Headmaster (short story), simply because I felt like doing it. It is, I would imagine, the definitive article in the entire world on this particular story. A couple of people, User:Meg Ireland springs to mind, denigrated the whole business, wondering why I would want to waste my time and CZ's resources on such a trivial matter. On the other hand, Larry Sanger, who was *very* active in those early days, liked the article and encouraged me to do more of them.... And Ms. Ireland, I believe, devoted an enormous amount of time to writing individual articles about all of the Lead Dirigible's albums, or maybe even about the individual songs. Which is not what *I* would have considered a profitable use of one's time.... Hayford Peirce 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:UnindentCan't remember which bracket to use for the unindent but I am trying...To the heart of the matter...Hayford thank you for eloquently stating the obvious. I wanted to write this but as I am always in fear of getting the ax, so to speak, I have to write carefully. Who is the arbiter on what is significant? I believe almost any well written article is significant as it presents new information. Citizendium should present a wide variety of articles, from all walks of life, and work to include anyone who wants to contribute. Citizendium should not exclude but work to include anyone who wants to help. Off my soap box for now... Mary Ash 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Article does not qualify as an encyclopedia entry

I view this article in the 'news' category, does not belong in CZ. —Anthony.Sebastian 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is the arbiter on what is significant? I believe almost any well written article is significant as it presents new information. Anthony that's what I wrote above. I will also ask you this: Why would you want to discard a well written NPOV article? You are now running for ME so hopefully you have an understanding of NPOV. As the article is written now, I don't think it's that off-base as it fits in with all the other articles written here, especially so since the article contains clear, concise copy with a good lede provided by our writing master Hayford. What more could you ask for? Mary Ash 13:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It is plain that "significance" is not an exact quantity, and different people will see it differently. However, switching the question of whether this article is significant to a discussion of whether there is any meaning to significant is simply diversion. However vague the distinction between wet and damp, this article is all wet.
One way to justify such articles is as Hayford has suggested: completely abandon significance as a criterion. He has suggested articles on minor topics are fine with him. I suppose news articles of passing interest are too, or discussions of celebrity affairs? John R. Brews 13:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
We have an Article Inclusion Policy. That seems to say that if someone is willing to maintain it (to use Larry's original verb), it can stay, though it be trivial or transient. Unlike at Wikipedia, where it is likely to be deleted for non-notability. Ro Thorpe 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Edit conflict: I shall now read John's latest.)
Once again, it all depends on what each individual considers to be "significant". Years ago, I discovered that Tucson, where I live, has streets/avenues called stravenues and I wrote a little article about them, along with a photo. That was in, oh, December of 2007. Surely an insignificant article, you might say. In March of 2008, the local newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, had an article about stravenues. THE ARTICLE MENTIONED CZ AS A SOURCE!!!! A week or so after that, Wikipedia put up its own article about stravenues. I myself think that a well-prepared article about the Onion case is at least as significant as an article about stravenues. In any case, I don't think that the exclusionists and the inclusionists are ever going to agree on this, so we should probably move on to other things. Hayford Peirce 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

←← As a parting shot in this discussion, to me it seems peculiar that CZ claims to be about experts, while WP scoffs at them, and yet CZ is completely unperturbed about loading itself with trash articles where the expertise consists of being able to read the Las Vegas Sun, while WP worries about "notability". John R. Brews 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP's concept of "notability" is based on "reliable sources". As a result, there are vast numbers of articles about obscure sporting figures because there's lots of coverage of them in "reliable" local newspapers. Peter Jackson 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI there is a difference between tabloid newspapers and hard newspapers. To imply the Las Vegas Sun is trashy would be inaccurate. I went to Las Vegas Sun main page online and discovered the Las Vegas Sun is a Pulitzer Prize winner for Public Service reporting. Also, the Associated Press, which is used as a reference in this article, is far from tabloid news. I grow wearisome of reading how journalists and newspapers are bad sources. Like any source you have to evaluate what's available. There is a big difference between using the World Weekly News and the Las Vegas Sun, Associated Press or the London Times as sources. The Las Vegas Sun, AP and the Times are all hard newspapers who pride themselves on producing accurate reporting. Good hardworking journalists take pride in presenting accurate news in a timely fashion. As with all changing events, there are updates to be made, and sometimes a needed correction. This does not mean the journalist failed in doing their, it means the journalist WAS doing their job to gather news in a timely fashion and to continue to follow the story. Journalists are part of the fourth estate and are charged with making sure government continues to operate within its boundaries. In the end journalists are historians too as they are often the ones who are covering real-time politics, accidents and other tragedies and often put their lives in jeopardy by heading to war zones. While I have never covered a war zone story, I have seen my share of accidents, fires and other tragedies which often kept me awake at night. I've also covered governmental affairs and met some really interesting people and have the pleasure of saying I watched Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy rise through the political ranks. So please show some respect for journalists they deserve it. Mary Ash 02:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

status and categories

I've changed the status from Stub to Developing. Could someone figure out what Categories it might fall into and add those? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Law, Politics, Philosophy, Hobbies? Peter Jackson 17:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, certainly Law and Politics -- I'll add those. Maybe Biology? That seems to be the only actual Workgroup that Dog is in. Hayford Peirce 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd go for law and biology. Dog breeding and showing is considered a hobby too so it could go there but I think the tone of the article fits best with law and biology. Mary Ash 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

who are these people

who is eliz. in relation to the kid who was killed. not clear.... Hayford Peirce 18:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Straight from the CZ article: Elizabeth Keller's family had gathered at her home in Henderson, Nevada to celebrate the first birthday of her grandson, Jeremiah Elizabeth Keller is grandma (at her home...) Jeremiah = grandson. Hope this helps. Mary Ash 02:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, because *I* am the person who wrote the above! I had to figure it out from other parts of the article. It was not clear until *I* made it so.... Hayford Peirce 03:20, 15 June 2012

(UTC)

This is what I wrote on June 13: The family had gathered at the 1600 block of Navarre Lane home in Henderson, Nevada to celebrate the child's first birthday. During the party, Jeremiah was given a bottle before crawling over to Onion and trying to grab hold of the dog to stand up. The boy's grandmother leaned over to pick up Jeremiah when the dog grabbed the boy's head and started to shake the child. The boy's father, along with others, raced to rescue the child. Seems pretty clear to me. Especially the part where I wrote "The boy's grandmother leaned over to pick up Jermiah...earlier in the article I do believe Jeremiah's full name is given on first reference. In the second reference it was Jeremiah. I probably should have spelled out Grandma's name on first reference which was in this paragraph, if I remember right. Mary Ash 03:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why?

This sort of thing is routine, at least over here. Animals that attack people are regularly executed. Is it any different over there? So why is such a fuss being made over this particular case? Peter Jackson 09:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Because there are lotsa loonies in the world. And people with too much time on their hands. And isn't England known for its rich selection of eccentrics? Hayford Peirce 12:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Peter you ask a very good question. I am a country girl and around here that's what would be done. Of course that could imply commonsense...but societal standards seem to be changing. We now have "pet parents" for example. I have loved and cared for many animals throughout my life, but I would not consider myself a "pet parent". I was taught to believe this: Genesis 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Source: Bible Gateway.com Genesis refers to the creation of Adam and Eve who have dominion over the animals. Part of that dominion is caring for the animals. That does not mean animals have dominion over man. It is the other way round.Mary Ash 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear either of you has grasped my point. There are lots of cases like this, so why is so much fuss being made over this particular case? Peter Jackson 09:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why in the outside world so much fuss is being made about this particular case: I'm not a sociologist or academic. As to why a "fuss" is being made in CZ, it's because some people think the article, with modifications, should be here, as we are an encyclopedia that, in theory, deals with everything, while other Citizens think that this is an article of no significance and should not be here. As I have said before, and I will now repeat it, this is not an article I would have initiated myself. But since someone did initiate it, and it caught the interest of at least a certain number of people who were willing to devote their time to editing and rewriting it, then I think it should be allowed to stand. Eventually the whole article ought to reach the quality level of the first couple of paragraphs. If anyone really, really thinks that it should be deleted, then that person should make a formal representation of that request to the Editorial Council -- doesn't the "suggestion box" still exist for contacting the EC?
While I'm on the subject, John Brews has waved a red herring over and over: "suppose we start getting articles about apple pie contests and so forth"? Well, suppose we do? We will handle them on an individual basis. So far, I haven't seen any articles submitted that fall into that category.... Hayford Peirce 16:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

←←Hayford: It's not a "red herring". This article IMO fits exactly in the "apple-pie-contest" category. "Why is such a fuss being made over this particular case?" Why indeed. Why doesn't the CZ article address this point? John R. Brews 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some pearls for you to consider straight from the CZ guide:

"innocent"?

Can a dog actually be "innocent" or "guilty" of anything? I think not. But what word should be substituted for "innocent" in the lede paragraph? Hayford Peirce 03:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think dogs can be innocent or guilty of anything as they lack the mental capacity to determine right from wrong. I would probably use the term vicious as I think that's what the Lexus Project was protesting. You'd have to research what the project is trying to protect and why. Mary Ash 04:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I assume that the Lexus people are saying that although this particular dog did kill a child, it was by accident and not intent, and that therefore it is not a "vicious" dog that should be put down. I'll have to get out my thesaurus to look up other words for "innocent". Hayford Peirce 16:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The word I'm used to in this context is 'dangerous', and the opposite of that would be 'harmless'. Ro Thorpe 00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, Ro! Fine words, indeed. I'll take a look at revising things when I have a moment. Hayford Peirce 01:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not think "harmless", as currently used in the opening paragraph, is correct either. The dog is fairly obviously not harmless; he has done some serious harm.
The actual phrasing is "an example of overreaching law enforcement against harmless dogs". I'd have "dogs arbitrarily declared vicious" or some such. I do not think anyone is arguing that large dogs are not sometimes dangerous, only that some of the procedures for dealing with cases like this are seriously flawed. Sandy Harris 03:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Sandy, this is a perfect example of how a wiki like this *should* work. I wasn't very happy with my phrasing, either. But was hoping that someone else would step in and contribute.... Hayford Peirce 03:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As Sandy suggests, or perhaps merely remove 'harmless'. Ro Thorpe 12:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I like this graf better as it draws the reader in

I like this graf much better as it draws the reader in. Also, the quote starts the sentence which makes the graf active and inviting to read. Would prefer to have that portion reinstated. Mary Ash 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Added what I forgot to add :-)

"My grandchild is gone, and I want my dog to be in peace. He won't be in peace until he's put to sleep," said Keller. After the dog was impounded, the family did not appeal the impounding and quarantine of Onion.[12]

Keller later said in a sworn statement, she turned over Onion's ownership under duress, and she wanted the Lexus Project to have the dog.[13] Mary Ash 22:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

the rewrite is mostly completed

I have now substantially trimmed and rewritten the entire article. It is, at the very least, no longer a simple laundry list of barely related facts and assertions, many of which were repeated over and over. I have also tried to impose some sort of narrative order on the article.

I sure that more can be done to the article, both in copyediting and rewriting, as well as expanding it, perhaps, in order to make it part of a Bigger Picture. But I'm gonna leave that up to others -- I'm doggoned weary of the whole silly business. Hayford Peirce 23:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My take is that you have all done a very good job cleaning and rebuilding this article. It is very neutral and objectively written. Good job. D. Matt Innis 17:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
There exists no "Big Picture" behind this article. This incident might be a data point in a "Big Picture" if statistics were collected to make some "Big Picture" statement, like, for instance, Nevada courts are more indecisive about animal cases than any other state, or Nevada animal cases are in the top third of longest court cases in USA, or whatever. If there were a "Big Picture", then a "Big Picture" article would be suitable for CZ. But as things stand, this article is included on CZ simply because there exist no criteria to exclude trivial articles, and the appearance of these articles is simply an indicator that CZ is not a repository of information but of clutter. John R. Brews 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
One man's information is another man's clutter, and vice versa. I have to say that I am completely baffled as to why you are harping so incessantly on this poor, inoffensive article. By your criteria, and only yours, maybe 95% of the existing articles in CZ should be deleted.... Hayford Peirce 22:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
John if we were to do what you suggested then the article would be an opinion piece not a factual article. Hayford and others have contributed to make this article into a fine piece of factual writing about something significant. As I wrote at Wikipedia, this article has legal ramifications as if Onion is allowed to live, then numerous municipalities will have to re-evaluate their city code. Most US cities euthanize dogs that are declared vicious. Another point is whether the courts will accept the dog owner claiming "duress" and recanting her release of ownership. That is the big picture you fail to see. I also agree with Hayford about your harping about this article. As my mother would have said "it's a lot like a dog worrying it's bone". Mary Ash 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Slow down, folks. John has a valid point — it is not clear that this dog is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article — so "harping" on it when it appears that point has not been taken is a perfectly valid thing for him to do.
That said, I'd say he's wrong. The dog's case raises interesting questions, both legal (Who actually owns this animal? Should cities have the power to seize vicious dogs? With what safeguards? Should an animal rights group be able to intervene?) and philosophical (Should all vicious dogs die? Should any? How do we define the term "vicious"? What responsibilities does our "dominion" over animals bring?). Sandy Harris 05:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Sandy: I think Hayford has stated his opinion clearly that any subject is suitable for a CZ article, as long as it observes a few guidelines in its execution. He gives the example of Stravenue, which I'll admit I find entertaining.
On the other hand, you yourself suggest that some criteria be applied, for example, that the article raises interesting issues like the application to dogs of "vicious", or humankind's responsibility for animals, and so forth. That position is more restrictive than Hayford's, and less restrictive than my own, which would be that the general issues applicable should become CZ articles, instead of introducing an article about an unremarkable instance.
Thanks for adding some moderation to this exchange. John R. Brews 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia version has now been deleted. Ro Thorpe 15:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Would be doggone funny if the topic weren't so serious

I'm sorry I am only just seeing this discussion, but it could not be helped.

I am sorry this has taken up so much time, but then again, that's what we humans do, and I still have the fondest memories of roast turkey and near death and several other articles that were argued over way past the point of diminished returns.

Had I not seen Sandy's note, or read the comments at the talk page, but had just gone straight to the current incarnation of the article, I would have said that it is entirely appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. The earlier issues seem to be

1) Are articles deemed (by any person, or by some people) 'trivial', 'minor', or the Big One, 'not notable', allowable at CZ?

Well, we've been all over that one. The fact is that at CZ we do not have Wikipedia's notability requirements. Authors being interested enough to expend time and effort suffices for inclusion, if an intelligent article can be written in an informative and encyclopaedic manner. A related example is 'should there be a CZ article on every man, woman and child on the planet, then?' We've had yays and nays. The EC has yet to rule on the matter.

2) Are people allowed to push personal agendas on CZ?

No, if that is all they're doing. However, we all tend to write about what we know, and of course what interests us. Strong personal bias can and should be removed; that a writer is biased on an issue, however, does not mean that the entire issue is lacking in significance.

It is possible, of course, that Onion's case may turn out not to be of any last import at all. So what? It can be deleted later. Or kept as an interesting footnote to history. Or, if appropriate, it might form part of a larger article about dog law in general.

The bottom line is that because of the legal precedents that could be set, and the importance of precedence in American jurisprudence, the article should remain pending a resolution in the Nevada Supreme Court and the test of time. That would be enough to qualify it in any case, in my opinion. Aleta Curry 23:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the many wise words, Aleta! Wise, but also full of common sense! Glad to see you back, and am sorry to learn that you were gone that long because of illness! Have a great glass of Shiraz and feel better! Hayford Peirce 00:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Current status?

The article currently ends with a statement that a court ruling is likely "by the end of June". It is September. Does anyone know, or care to take the trouble to find out, if there are new developments? Sandy Harris 01:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us -- I'll take a look and then make an update. Hayford Peirce 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The can has now been kicked down the road until Sept. 24th. Hayford Peirce 22:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It is December. Anyone know what happened? Sandy Harris 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe they've cooked and ate him, putting an end to it all. I'll take a look, I guess, sigh.... Hayford Peirce 20:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hearing set for July 3 [2] Sandy Harris 19:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I recently note that Dr. Golden was banned from Citizendium by the constabulary, on an unrelated matter. This article was created by Dr. Golden on Wikipedia then imported here when it was deleted for non-notability on the former. The article claims he started the rescue campaign for Onion, which was subsequently assumed by the Lexus Project. In a Facebook post by the Lexus Project, they have distanced themselves from Dr. Golden claiming he solicited donations on behalf of Onion but kept the donations for himself - https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=134397299923522&story_fbid=425975040765745

Dr. Golden did not disclose his financial interest in Onion. Citizendium policy states: 'You may not, even if you are a topic informant, start an article about yourself, or any company, organization, website, or other entity, especially marketable entity, with which you are closely associated. Such articles may be deleted summarily.' http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Policy_on_Self-Promotion

Is it over?

According to a Lexus Project page "The litigation has been dismissed and Onion has been relocated permanently to an animal RESCUE." Sandy Harris 00:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted from Wikipedia

See here for the Wikipedia discussion (deleted on notability grounds, one event, not news). Meg Ireland (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)