Talk:Hog-dog rodeo

Sabotage

• 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)

Accuracy?

• 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)

Show your "research" then little girl. Don't pretend that you know more about this than me, (I'm the one that made those previous edits). Show me some real verifiable research from a source that didn't just decide that they were going to have a problem with the hunting style/sport of hog dogging and then look for things that other people with the same problem have said without providing any proof, I have been to hundreds of these contests over the years and I have yet to see ANY dog which sustained more than a superficial cut from a boar, nor have I ever (in a contest) seen a hog get anything more than a slight puncture wound from teeth.

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)

comment left in article moved here

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)

HOG DOGGING

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)

Conflation of Hog-baiting and hog-doging

I'm about to revert everything you just did tonight, but maybe not for the reason you may think. This article is supposed to be about Hog-baiting, and as such is one of many articles, Rat baiting, bear baiting, even human-baiting. What you have done is written an article about something else, much of it about hunting hogs with dogs. The article I'm reverting this to has this problem as well, but at least it's in part about hog-baiting. So after reverting, I'm going to remove everything that isn't about hog-baiting. You are more than welcome to contribute to articles such as catch dog, or to create a new article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be about baiting, not hunting. People used to bait all kinds of animals, duck baiting and lion bating and badger baiting and so on. It shouldn't be about hunting. Hunting is not in a ring or pit or arena. Now, if what is done at Uncle Earl's Hog Dog Trials is not "baiting" but something else, then this article can be moved to Hog Dogging. What they do there seems to be a bit differnt for bear baiting and the other baiting bloodsports. What makes Uncle Earl's different from all the others seems to be that at one point in the show they actually use not only bay dogs but also catch dogs. Those parts might qualify as baiting or not, I'm no expert. But there seems to be some doubt about whether all of these bay dog trials are the same thing as baiting, and even the catch dog event there may not be the same thing as hog baiting as it was practiced along with all the other bloodsports of so long ago, mostly in England, it seems. Chrisrus (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Since this is the article that pops up when one searches for hog dogging, this is the hog dogging article rather than the far less common and less popular (illegal everywhere in the free world) "baiting". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickell4 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, use the "move" tab to move this article about hog-dogging to "hog-dogging" and have it be only about that. It's easy, but let me know if you need any help.

Second, we'll need another article about hog-baiting to go with our articles about rat-baiting, monkey-baiting, and so on and so forth. I think we can use the history tab to find the way this article used to be, an article about hog-baiting, before someone added the "-dogging" information thereby conflating the two, and then we can use that to create the hog-baiting article if we want. Second, once the two phenomena are separated and we have one article about the one thing and another about the other, you might want to make this a good article on hog-dogging. WP:GOOD articles have pictures and such, but more importantly they have citations. There may be sources you can cite and other stuff you could use. Bay dog and Catch dog come to mind, and there may be more about hunting pigs with dogs. Should there be one article about hunting pigs with dogs and another about hog-dogging? The way you've written this one it's sometimes seems to conflate the concepts of pig hunting and hog dogging, but maybe that's ok. Chrisrus (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There isn't such a thing as hog baiting in the modern English speaking world, I can promise you that; if the article "hog baiting" were written about old times, other countries, or even if the article tried to inaccurately <read further> claim that hog dog trials are a form of hog baiting I wouldn't have a problem with that. However, the article goes out of the way to stamp out any view that opposes modern northern liberal thinking (I notice that somebody even eliminated my link that I posted which contained actual statistics about the hog problem in Texas and the importance that well trained dogs play in combating the problem.)

Furthermore, "hog dog rodeos" (which is the name of the narrowly defined subject of wikipedia's fake article, "hog baiting"), are entirely different from hog baiting or any of the many animals that have been baited in the long human history of causing suffering to animals for human entertainment. The entire point of hog dog rodeos is only to show off which are the most capable dogs, never to cause undue pain to the pig. The animals are not fighting. Instead in most cases these are bay competitions where the dogs simply bark at the pigs and must get them to be still (rather like a herding competition between sheep and those small black and white dogs). And secondly even in a catch dog competition, THE ANIMALS DO NOT FIGHT, instead: the boar is released, two trained dogs wearing kevlar vests and collars go in and grab the pig by the ears, and then a person holds the pig by the back legs while others release the dogs from the ears and then as soon as the dogs are removed the pig is let go. I have never ever seen a pig come to any harm in the ring, (although very often the pigs are killed later and their meat is donated to local poor families). ALWAYS in any sort of a "baiting" contest the point is to cause pain and destruction to animals for entertainment. Hog dogging rodeos are instead very much like other types of rodeos where a dog must skillfully subdue a pig, instead of a man on horseback with a rope subduing a baby cow.

P.S. This really is showing how you probably shouldn't be editing this article at all. Hog dogging and pig hunting are the same thing (at least google the topic if you are going to edit), also a part of hog dogging though are Hog Dog rodeos which are the enclosure contests of various types dog skills useful in hog dogging in the field. And thank you I would appreciate help on the "move" tab. ;)

We don't seem to have a separate article about hunting pigs with dogs, but we do have a section here: Boar_hunting#Hunting_dogs. Please read it and let me know if you think. I will reply more later cuz im' workin now. Chrisrus (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To use the move tab, scroll up, it's between "history" and "watch/unwatch". Just type the name you want to change it to, "Hog dogging" or "Hog dog rodeo" or whatever. Then where it says "reason" you can just write "separating hog dogging from hog baiting" or some such. Whatever you write, don't write much. Use few words. Chrisrus (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to know alot about hog-dog rodeos, but you don't seem to be trying to present yourself as a person who knows much or anything about boar baiting. If you are going to de-conflate the two concepts, however, we're going to have to find out more about it. I understand that you think that people who aren't experts on things shouldn't be involved in editing articles about these things, and that seems logical, but that's how Wikipedia works. Between all of us, we research what experts know as best we can and transfer the info to the article. Sometimes we can find and persuade an expert to write the whole thing or help, and many of us are experts in this or that. We could try to find one, but please try Googling up some info on Boar baiting if you're going to say things about it when you contast the two. Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a great admirer of wikipedia and frankly I think the wikimedia foundation is one of monumental things to come about from web 2.0 (I'm currently in the seeding stage of my own project using Mediawiki, so I'm very Greatful;P). That's partly the reason why the initial way that this article was edited offends me so deeply, instead of trying to educate about something that actually happens and portray that in a nonjudgmental way instead a misguided "misdirect" (I'm not sure of the proper term) equated a passionate part of tens of thousands of modern day American's lives with the baiting days of olden times. The Nambla (North American Man Boy Love Association) had a less harsh page that's ridiculous, and to the best of my knowledge Nambla's page also didn't carry the type of exaggeration that was on this page to begin with. Boar baiting is as extinct in the western world as any of the other types of baiting (with the exception of cock fighting and dog fighting if you want to include those under the baiting title). Frankly I have never actually heard of hog baiting ever being that popular (off hand research I've done over the years) as compared to badgers, bulls, bears, ducks, or rats (baiting was more a sport of the lower masses and at the time boar hunting was something which was only carried about by the upper crust on gigantic estates, so that's kind of natural that there wouldn't be a lot of mixing between those ends). And sonny, are you really trying to imply that I am not an expert at this? ;) Surely you jest, good sir. I thank you for the tutorial on the move tab, I'll use this page as a reference for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickell4 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was saying that while you did seem to be an expert on hog-dogging, you didn't seem to be trying to say that you were an expert on boar-baiting. Now you seem to claim more knowledge about it, but if you are, please let's write an article about it as we don't have one anymore.

How can we cite any of the information in this article? Is there an official rule book, or what would be the best way to cite all this? We can't add a footnote citing everything to some username "Brickell4". Sure, I believe you and most others probably will, but the whole article almost could be deleted by the next user who comes along on the grounds that it's uncited and there will be nothing that we can do about it. It looks like there aren't any peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, unsurprisingly, but we should get the most serious and authoritative published thing we can find. Is there a professional association of boar hunters that publishes something?

That's not the only thing that this article needs. It needs pictures and editing. Please take care of these matters. And then when it's all ready we'll apply for "Good article" status. Chrisrus (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing on Google Scholar

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)

Does this really seem like the type of subject to you where academic researchers in Virginia (a state which doesn't have as much of a hog problem) would know a lot about? I think the fact that this refers to all catch dogs as "pitbulls" pretty much sums up the lack of knowledge. Pit bulls can be used as catch dogs, but I wouldn't say they are even in the majority of dog breeds used (Dogos are my favorite since they are completely non dog agressive ;)). I as well as millions of active hog dogging enthusiasts in this country, as well as overseas, understand what hog dogging is, so the fact that lawyers in Virginia don't know what their talking about doesn't affect me in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickell4 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I found this for you

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)

No offense, but I'm not really that impressed with this find of yours, i.e. a very short time ago somebody referencing wikipedia about this subject could have been equally mislead. There are millions of websites run by millions of different people, you don't have to have a degree or any experience to pretend that you know about a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickell4 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have to cite this stuff somehow, because much as you seem to think it should be, the authority of some user named Brickell4 is never going to be enough. This citation says "Though both are often called hog-dogging, some participants make a distinction between hog-baying, in which the dogs are only permitted to howl, bark, and bay to keep the hogs in check, and hog-dogging, in which the dogs are permitted to fight and bite the hogs. The former activity is usually part of a hog dog rodeo and the latter is not." Then it gives it's own citations. You may be frustrated by the obviousness that I don't know much about hog dogging compared to you, but you don't seem to know much about writing Wikipedia articles and how it's supposed to be done. So between us we can fix this up. Do you have a picture or two? We can't have too many, just the best, most informative ones. Chrisrus (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Brickell, if this were an "ask an expert" website or a blog or something like that, your personal opinions and experience would no doubt be a valued resource. Here on Wikipedia, we are required to go by what is published in reliable sources, as I can see Chrisus has been trying to explain to you for some time now. I'm sorry if that doesn't comport with your idea of how things ought to be, but that is how things work here. Verification of content through the use of reliable sources is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the core principles under which this site is operated, so we can't just go ignoring it if it happens to be inconvenient. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Beetlejuice, did I fucking ask ur opinion on anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickell4 (talk • contribs) 

You don't have to ask my opinion, this website is run through collaboration, anyone is free to participate in any content discussion they wish. You may find you get along better if you stop being so openly hostile towards other users. that may play on other websites, but it is not appropriate for a collaborative encylopdia project and will only lead to more problems. Beeblebrox (talk)

USA today article?

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)

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)

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)

possibly useful articles

1. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2006-08-24/news/high-on-the-hog/full/
2. http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/archives/baying-dogs-against-hogs-for-charity/article_d7494b5f-31dd-5258-988c-b52786afb996.html
3. 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)

Hog-baiting?

Activating RFC. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A hog-dog rodeo, as this article says, is an event which features bay dog trials. Boar baiting, in contrast, is an event in which dogs and pigs are pitted against each other to fight it was popular in England a long time ago. Bay dogs, as the article says, are not supposed to touch the pig. They don't make contact with the pig. If they don't even make contact, how can it be boar-batiing. Hog-dog rodeo is different from boar-baiting.

However, sometimes, catch dog trials are featured in hog-dog rodeos. Catch dogs are supposed to actually catch and hold the pig. This is closer to boar-baiting, and people could reasonably maybe say that it is boar-baiting. However, not all hog-dog rodeos feature catch dog events. Therefore, even if catch dog events are boar-baiting, as few hog-dog rodeos feature catch dog events, few hog-dog rodeos can be said to feature as a part of them any boar-baiting.

Also, even those hog-dog rodeos that feature catch dog events couldn't be considered the same as boar-baiting unless that was all they did. If much or all of the events at a hog-dog were catch-dog events, that specific hog-dog rodeo would maybe be the same as a boar-baiting event. However, there is no sign of any hog-dog rodeo that consists of only catch dog events and no bay dog events.

However, it is not clear that a catch-dog event really is boar baiting either. Boar baiting is a sort of arranged spectator fight between animals, where the idea is for the animals to battle it out. But catch dogs are expected to simply hold and immobilize the pig, so that the nuisance animal man can come along and hog-tie it or dispatch it right then and there, and a trial simply is practice for this activity. So it's not even clear that even catch dog events are nothing but boar-baiting. Chrisrus (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• As you can read at the following links, Link1 Link2 Hog-Dog Fighting, Hog-Baiting, Hog-Dog Rodeos, Hog dogging, hawg dawgin and hog dog "rodeos" are synonyms for the exact same activity. This article should be moved to "Hog-baiting", so it is inline with the naming convention of the other articles in its classification here. IQ125 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Dog baiting is setting dogs against animals to bite, tear, or kill each other. Most hog-dog rodeos consist only of Bay dog events in which the dogs and pigs do not come into contact with each other at all. How can an event in which the animals do not make physical contact therefore be rightly termed "baiting"? Unless "baiting" is re-defined to include events in which the animals never touch, bay dog trials cannot be rightly termed "baiting". Chrisrus (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus, with respect, what you are doing is trying to minimize, justify and rationalize animal cruelty. Dog-baiting is defined as follows:

Dog baiting is setting game dogs against a chained or confined animal for sport. The dogs bite, and tear to subdue the opposing animal by incapacitating or killing it. Baiting is a blood sport used for entertainment and gambling.

This definition fits for Hog-Dog Rodeo, Hog-baiting, Hog-Dawging, or whatever name or idiom you want to call it. It is all the same activity. Please see the two citations I provided above for third-party confirmation. Just because some parts of the world do not call it illegal, does not mean is not Hog-baiting. It is all the same activity, it might be marketed and packaged differently, but it still the same and fits into the definition of Dog-baiting. IQ125 (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

See, you are revealing your own opinion in your remarks. Whether or not using bay dogs only is animal cruelty is not the point. The point is whether that practice is defined by the majority of reliable sources as "baiting".

On this issue, The Humane Society is clearly not an objective bystander on this issueand should not be considered a reliable source for this any more than we would consider some obvious pro-hog-dogging group to be one. US Legal, the other link you provided... I can't make out exactly what that site is, their "disclaimer" link led me to a 404 error. I can't find any explanation over there of where they get their definitions or what kind of editorial oversight they have, so I can't see considering them a reliable source either until that is cleared up. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be going by the links you provide, only. Please read the article and its references. In Bay dog trial events, the animals are not to make any physical contact, so by all definitions it can't be "baiting". According to references, catch dog events, which might be arguably "baiting", are usually not included and when they are included only constitute a fraction of a hog dog rodeo, not its entirety. Therefore, even if a hog dog rodeo includes catch dog events, which they many times don't, we couldn't say that "hog dog rodeo" = "boar baiting" any more than we could say that "circus" = "trapeze act". The latter would only be a section of the former. With this in mind, please read the article and its references. Chrisrus (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but NO! Hog-Dog Rodeos at their heart are about "Hog-baiting". I just provided two-citations from reputable sources to support that fact. There are many more citations you can find using Google. In fact, I suggest we move the article to "Hog-baiting" to be inline with Wikipedia naming conventions. If you want to put a second-level paragraph about "Hog-dog rodeos" that would be fine with me. Good luck. IQ125 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you read my comments, it appears you did not as I endeavored to explain why neither of those appears to be a reliable source for the intended changes. Let me be clear, I don't really care one way or the other, I have never had any involvement with this issue in any way, but if we are going to discuss moving the page based on the idea of what term reliable sources use, then we will need to actually see those sources. A vague "Google has more" is not a very effective way to argue your point. You are the one proposing a change, the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence for your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just asked for more eyes on this at WP:RSN. I don't believe the sources just added to the article are appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hog-baiting involves a dog submitting, harming or killing a hog/pig/boar. If you want then we require a "fork-article". One for "Hog-dog Rodeo", which is only barking, no touching of the dog to the hog and one for "Hog-baiting". What do you fellows think? IQ125 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we already have that. Hog-baiting redirects to Dog baiting which describes the practice of using dogs in animal-vs-animal blood sports. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

With regard to your offer, the referent of this article is the whole hog dog rodeo, not the catch dog trial events, which are not needed for an event to be a hog-dog rodeo. The article, and the references that were used to write the text it contains, say that hog-dog rodeos are mostly about bay dog trials, which can never be baiting (animals) because the animals are not to touch each other.

A more reasonable offer on your part would be for a redirect to a subsection of this article specifically about catch dog events. But as bay dog events constitute the bulk of what a hog-dog rodeo is, one can't rightly say a hog-dog rodeo is a catch dog event.

That might work but an event in which catch dogs immobilize pigs by the ears and then a man comes along and hog-ties it and someone calls "time" and it's on to the next man/dog team competitors one isn't same as an event pitting dogs against a boar, bear or whatever and to see which will win, the dogs or the boar. There's a qualitative difference between catch dog trials and baiting (animals).

I offer you this: include this article in the category "Animal Cruelty". No one will argue that those pigs aren't really unhappy, to put it mildly, during these events, so if enjoyment at the panic of another is cruelty, then all will agree this qualifies for that category. You could do the same with the article Pig scramble. But these events are not the same as old-time English-style boar baiting, something Wikipedia seems not to have an article about at the moment. Chrisrus (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nope, Hog-baiting should be a "fork". IQ125 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we've established that we already have an article on hog-baiting. What, exactly, are you proposing be done to this article? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a second. Let's talk about this. There are articles like Lion baiting, Bear baiting, Badger baiting, and on and on. They are all sub-articles, we could say, of the article dog baiting. There should definitely be one about Boar baiting, as it used to be in places such as England, where dogs and boars are pitted against each other to see who will win, the dogs or the other animal be it a bear or even a hyena or a monkey or whatever. I would start one myself today if I had references for it. I'll look into it a bit, but as I recall I tried before and couldn't find anything. I encourage you, any reader of these words, to try to do this as well; find references and start an article on boar baiting just like the ones on Donkey-baiting and so on. But not this article, it's about something else.

Until that day, neither Boar-baiting nor Pig-baiting nor Hog-baiting should link here, they should link to dog baiting. Hog-dog rodeo is not the same as the baiting in all those other articles. Chrisrus (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I Googled it and I found in Google Books the Encyclopedia Of Traditional British Rural Sports edited by Tony Collins, John Martin, Wray Vamplew . It says very little. It just calls boar baiting “a rare variation on bull and bear baiting” and that it’s mentioned as a popular sport in London by the twelfth-century writer William Fitzstephen.

It also recommends “Reeves, C., Pleasures and Pastimes in Medieval England (Stroud: Sutton, 1995). That’s as far as I’ve gotten so far, and I must move on to other things. I hope you will take up the leads I’ve left here tonight and have a proper and separate article on boar baiting. Chrisrus (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am seconding IQ125. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you agree with IQ125, as I do, when he said "if you want then we require a "fork-article". One for "Hog-dog Rodeo", which is only barking, no touching of the dog to the hog and one for "Hog-baiting". (20:17, 14 July 2013, above). Is that correct?

Until the article boar-baiting can be created, hog-baiting can continue to link to the parent article about dog-baiting in general, and pig-baiting will not be like badger baiting, monkey baiting, lion baiting and so on. Pig-baiting will not to have such a "daughter article" of the "mother article" dog-baiting. That's ok for now, but what we really need is an article about pig-baiting, Is that agreed by all? If so, we first need to collect references for an article specifically about boar/hog/pig/-baiting and begin work on it. Where is the best place for us as a group to collect such references and get that article going?

Also, is it agreed that we can use the Humane Society link provided above by IQ125 to cite, in this article, that the Humane Society equates the terms "hog-dog rodeo" and "boar/hog/pig baiting": that, in the view of that organization, hog-dog rodeo is just hog-baiting. Furthermore, any other prominent criticism or defense of this practice should be summarized in this article. Chrisrus (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

'Paged' here by an AAAlertBot alert; I've googled, and as far as I can tell, hog-baiting and Hog-dog rodeos are two separate events; it strikes me as the difference between earthdog events where there may be a rat in a cage at the end of the tunnel, and actually sending a dog into a badger's den. I would also like to say the accusations of 'defending animal cruelty' and such aren't really relevant to what the name of the article is. --TKK ^{bark !} 13:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC Responses

• Greetings, I was randomly selected to offer an opinion on the RFC which was opened. First off, there is a statement made which reads, The Humane Society is clearly not an objective bystander on this issueand should not be considered a reliable source... which is not correct, the Humane Society is considered to be an authority on such issues inasmuch as The Human Society has decades of experience in such matters and employes volunteers drawn from past and present law enforcement officers, veterinarians, and even biologists.

In the contention involved here, references and quotes taken from The Humane Society should be treated as legitimate and authoritative unless any such reference or quote is demonstrably biased or untrue. Apriori legitimacy may be assumed given The Human Society's history, charter, and membership make-up.

As to the contention about animal cruelty, it is my opinion that nobody sane could look at either "Hog dogging" or "Hog baiting" as anything but cruel non-sexual sadism by the perpetrators and their viewing audience, and the fact that some cultures find the behavior acceptable is irrelevant. Both practices are abhorrent to the vast majority of civilized people among us. Also whether or not the behaviors described are animal cruelty or not is also irrelevant, any emotive content in the article should be avoided, neither adopting a predominant supporting nor opposing focus, in keeping with WP:NPOV neutrality.

Finally I believe the core of the contention is that there are two different sadistic human behaviors being described here, one of which contains rules which permit the hog to be physically attacked by the canine, another one of which contains rules which preclude the canine from physically attacking the hog. One can not suggest that hog-dogging is the same as hog-baiting because the rules are different even if the sadism and other factors are the same.

My opinion is that the article should not be merged in to any other article, neither an article on hog-baiting or any other article. My opinion is that hog-dogging, by virtue of holding variant rules of canine behavior, makes it a distinct behavior apart from hog-baiting. BiologistBabe (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attentnion to this matter.

If I read into your comments above, I think you would support the creation of another article on hog-bating separate from this one, along the lines of badger baiting and so on; and furthermore that you would agree that the fact that the Humane society does not distinguish between the two, would be a good addition to both this article and that one, should it exist. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)