Talk:Bandog/Archive 3

Another new start

The last page just turned into the same bickering again. I archived it again.

User:SSDA, since no one else has seen fit to include the information into the page that you feel should be added, can you accept that it's probably not going to be added to the page? You spoke a bit of other editors having a conflict of interest, but at no point did even neutral editors add the information back into the page, or even really support its inclusion here. It seems to me that it's best to take a careful approach about including information about a subject which obviously raises so much ire, and especially when the main proponent of the change in the article is someone who has an outside interest in the matter.

Please, please, please, leave the bickering to your other forums. Things are approaching the level of personal attacks which warrant being banned from editing. Keep things calm, civil, and focused on the article. One of the things about Wikipedia is that it is not written by experts, and so the credentials or identities or histories of our editors don't make their edits any more or less valid than others.

Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me if this is in the wrong spot, I have had trouble adding information to this debate.

Dogs are destroyed in Australia due to misinformation on the internet all the time. It is so hard to change the minds of officials when their only contact with this type of dog is Wikapedia and a Google search.

I do not think that all Bandogs should be associated with Swinford, any more than they should be associated with any other breeder who only stuck at them for a couple of years and whose bloodlines fell by the wayside. Swinford had a documented association with dog fighting; I see this as a blight, not something to be promoted.

In Australia "Swinford Bandogs" have been around for much longer than the current US program of the same name. They are considered Pit bull cross Neos with a connection to savage, "not frightened of anything made of flesh", uncontrollable, jaw locking, dog killing, psychotic, blood dripping fangs kind of images. I cannot name one serious Bandog program that would be breeding dogs like this.

Successful Bandog programs do not have to contain Pit Bull blood either, something else I would like to see mentioned. I have recently had to battle to have a dog exported due to somebody’s internet "research". Pit crosses aren't just banned in Australia; they are banned in many other countries as well.

I do not believe that the SSDA should be mentioned unless all other bandog programs are as well. There are many greatly successful ones that one never sees mentioned on the internet. It is unfair to single one program out on what is supposed to be an unbiased, international website and to have this misinformation be used as ammunition for the destruction of other people’s pets.

Cheers

Katrina Hartwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.173.38 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Katrina, for the record...I think all serious programs should be mentioned. Not just the SSDA. Also, bans in various countries are not sufficient reason to alter history. What they are sufficient reason for is to elect the proper officials and reasons to go to political meetings. However, I did notice that you yourself documented Swinford's work as influencial to your own program at one time. SSDA71.195.158.57 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lee, It is surely impossible to mention all the serious programs, even if you just limited it to those who are producing proven working dogs. I can think of a number of breeders who have never graced the internet and are unknown outside their own circles. I can think of a couple of Bandog groups that are in the same boat. Maybe it would be fairer not to mention anybody in particular??

I do not wish for history to altered, however history is perspective based. The vast majority of Bandogs ever whelped had no American Pit Bull Terrier blood at all. Just because some, mostly American Breeders have used Pit blood recently doesnt mean that it suddenly what a Bandog should be. Good dogs are produced with Pit Blood and good dogs are produced without it. I beleive that this needs to be bought into the information as it needs to be included. This is the part that greatly effects dogs in Australia.

You must understand that while, in your country the Swinford name might mean postitive things, in this country it does not. As the www part of internet adresses is the world wide web, i feel this needs to be taken into account. i feel it will be hard for you to understand as you have not been exposed to such.

In my mind the biggest influence on the modern Bandog is Mosely. I am sure that every body their own person they view as a keystone. I have never felt Swinford influential for myself, infact from what I have read of him I am disappointed that such a man was involved with the type of dogs I love.

The following passage is maybe what you refer to and is taken from an article I wrote, it is proceeded by information about Mosely and other Bandoggers of that time.

"Sadly, in modern times most people have heard of the Bandog and relate them to the dog fighter John Swinford. Had he not had his name published in print he would have faded into obscurity, just as his dogs did. It is commonly believed that a Neapolitan Mastiff cross Pit bull is a true Swinford Bandog, however Dr. Swinford found the Neo to be lacking for his needs, and his best dog Bantu was actually from an English Mastiff bitch by a Pit bull." (written by Katrina Hartwell, published by "Boar It Up Ya" Magazine, Australia, 2006).

BSL has stuck our country hard, if it were not so I probably would care less about how acurate information on the internet was. However when good dogs are put to death and info from the net is used as justification then I feel I need to write something.

Cheers

Katrina

Kmccoy, I don't believe the SSDA under the "appearence" should be included...there is no reason for the line stating "the SSDA has kept their standard for the Swinford type dogs private" What is the purpose of this? Only for someone to look it up SSDA and it will lead them to his kennel...the SSDA discussion forum is ON his site...no reason to mention anything referring to a SSDA swindford standard...there is no "standard" just general qualities...bandogs don't breed true and if they did...then they become a "purebred" and no longer a modern "bandog"...SSDA is his creation and a standard is in HIS eyes ONLY...and both are tied to his business and kennel...swinford as his dogs are dead...no ties to it in the modern sense except in the sole mind and creation of lee robinson and his SSDA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.227.6 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the standard is private...they can't look it up. It will not be made public until it is published in order to prevent it from being plagerized...as has been done before. The reason for mentioning it is because the "standard" (if you want to call it that" on WP is very vague and honestly...sorry. I wouldn't want people to confuse it with the SSDA version. The goal of the Swinford Sporting Dog Association is indeed to form a purebreed with a standard...and to seperate from the term "Bandog" eventually entirely. There are other ties...you just haven't done the research.SSDA71.195.158.57 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kmccoy,

I find your comments on this humerous on two levels.

1. The opposing party has not provided any referrences to dispute the documented and published text I provided...which dates back to 1972 and 1984...before any of us were involved. If this text predates all of our involvement, than HOW CAN IT BE A COI?"

2. The opposing party is also the one that has made personal attacks and done so without any evidence. I have not done that. I have only defended my position and done so with published text and proof.

For these reasons, I think your decision is in error of truth, history, and justice...but so be it. I would think these things would matter and take seniority over internet spam...as that is all the oppositing party has provided. But, if you want to support undocummented claims to trump referrenced and published text that predates all of our envolvement, so be it. That poor decision will rest on your shoulders.

In response to your statement, "One of the things about Wikipedia is that it is not written by experts, and so the credentials or identities or histories of our editors don't make their edits any more or less valid than others." These are your words, not mine, but apparently this is true in this case; however, aren't ENCYCLOPIAs supposed to use facts when they are provided from PUBLISHED TEXT...as in REFERRENCES? I thought "wikipedia" was supposed to be a credible source for information, not hearsay or internet spam. They have not provided a SINGLE REFERENCE to a view in opposition to the PUBLISHED and REFERRENCED text I provided.

SSDA71.195.158.57 12:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Truth, history, justice, ... you forgot "and the American way." These sorts of comments are nothing but rhetoric. Let's focus on the matter at hand.kmccoy (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to someone in court. Tell someone that made history that history doesn't matter. Tell your mother, a police officer, a judge, or God that truth doesn't matter (thou shalt not bear witness against thy neighbor). Tell someone who was a victim that justice doesn't matter. Why do you think America was formed?SSDA71.195.158.57 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether the information you wish to include is "true" or not, or whether it was published before your organization was created, does not matter. There is more to Wikipedia than what is "factual". Things also need to be encyclopedic and neutral. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. It seems to me that the brief mention in the article is sufficient for an encyclopedia. More detailed histories are better left to other sites and books on the subject.kmccoy (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would conceed to this...as long as the brief mentioning is accurate.SSDA71.195.158.57 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to spend some time in other areas of this site, to hopefully get a better grasp of how things work. Wikipedia works best when the articles are written by people uninvolved in a subject, because they don't have bias to bring to the table. Whether you like it or not, your bias in wanting to promote your club's involvement in things makes it impossible for your edits to be seen as neutral. kmccoy (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So be it...however, I notice that every dog breed described on wikipedia has information about the various breed clubs and links so reader can know where to go should they so desire. Now, if that is what "google" is for, I would assume you will be taking those links off all the other dogs sites immediately. Of course, we both know you won't be doing that now don't we. The SSDA is the only bandog specific association in existence today. So there is no opposing view or group. There is only a group of people that have personal issues with me...as you have very well seen. Their goal has nothing to do with the Bandog, but just to throw a wrench into anything we do. And,...they do inconvenience us from time to time...but that is all. We have grown and will continue to do so...with or without Wikipedia, the apparent encylopedia of gossip, hearsay, speculation, no referrenced material, and no expert opinions.SSDA71.195.158.57 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Both President and Founder are listed on the SSDA form. The acting president doesn't do the paperwork. That would be secretarial work. There is no "lie." This is another one of your false accusations that you can NOT back up. SSDA

Not on the copy I have but perhaps you recently changed it. It does have your name on it, it has your address, your words and your email address. There is no mention of the president or founder. COI.71.84.116.43 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had a SSDA registration form, you would see a space for president...and it would have Martin Lieberman's signature on it. If you are looking at the sample on my website, you will see the same form we have always used. It has not been changed. There are two places for signatures. One is founder (me) the other is president (Martin Lieberman).SSDA71.195.158.57 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

paragraph break

1. None of your referenced 'facts' prove that Swinford was the modern developer of anything. They only show him to be a dog breeder who fought his dogs, and got them accepted into the Fighting Dogs Journal. According to an old friend of Swinford's, Donald Stocks, his inclusion in the magazine was merely as filler material. Another old timer who knew Swinford, Michael Sottile Jr., also disputes the importance of Swinford's contributions as well. 24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Barbara, your post needs correcting on so many levels it isn't even funny. First, Donald and I are on friendly terms...but Donald NEVER KNEW Swinford, much less was he friends with him. Donald and I are on friendly terms. We don't agree on everything, but we are indeed on friendly terms and discuss things on a semi-regular basis. Apparently, you do not know Donald or how to get ahold of him...for if you did you would know he never knew of Swinford personally. Perhaps you mean Jack Kelly? For, Jack Kelly was friends with Swinford and new his work fairly well...which is why his documented and published referrences of Swinford's work should be included. It was clearly outlined in both the referrences I provided (Kelly's and Semencic's) that Swinford's dogs were developed and used primarily for guard dogs. You should read the referrences I provided before speaking on such matters. Also, Jack Kelly's article about Swinford's work was the COVER STORY. Since when is a covery story put in as "filler?" Also, Jack Kelly who owned the SDJ also wrote about Swinford's work in his book that discussed 30 years of the SDJ. Why was it in this "overview" book that talked about 30 years of the journal (a huge amount of writting) if it was "filler?" You can't answer this because you don't have any facts or referrences. Sottile JUNIOR is not an "old timer." His father Senior was. But, JR was not there and not involved. And, although Senior was there, his dogs were not involved. As referrenced by Jack Kelly, Swinford used the APBT (which was called "Bull-n-Terrier" at that time by many "old timers" but was understood by all to be the APBT and not the "Bull Terrier." Sottile JUNIOR didn't apparently didn't know the difference because 1. he is not an "old timer" and 2. he wasn't involved.SSDA71.195.158.57 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said you weren't friendly with Donald, nor did anyone say you were. It's irrelevant. Differing opinions don't mean someone is attacking the other. As a person who was in that circle back in the day, I respect and believe what he has to say. Perhaps it was in the overview because it was a rare "breed" being published in a pitbull journal, the bandog is a topic of interest to the pitbull community because they are cross bred with mastiffs, and because Swinford the breeder admitted to "rolling" his dogs. That would make it an interesting piece to include in a dog fighting magazine I would think. As for Sottile Jr.; he's an old timer to me because he was around when Swinford was. 24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Give it up Lee. You've never proven your exaggerated claims about Swinford because you can't. If what you claimed were true more experienced people would back it up. They don't. Others who were actually there don't concur with your revisionist history. What you fail to acknowledge is no one has a problem with Swinford the problem is you refuse to use anything else that contradicts your story. This is why you are not a credible source for bandog history.71.84.116.43 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been the only one to provide published and varifiable referrences. I would like to ask you ONCE AGAIN to site even a single publishing that suggests an opposing view.SSDA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.158.57 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

paragraph break

In order to be considered a modern developer of a breed, or even a developer period, there must be surviving lines. In Swinford's case, there are no surviving dogs, no proof there was even a line of dogs. If this is confusing for you, please research the English Mastiff and Bull Mastiff and learn how breeders back then created and resurrected the breeds. I see none of that with Swinford.24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Perhaps you should research some more breeds...like the Dobermann Pinscher "created and developed" by Louis Dobermann even though it is reported by many that his dogs died and and his work was truly developed by others that referrenced his work due to following what was known and in some cases even speculated about Dobermann's breeding plan and goals.SSDA

Now you've demonstrated you don't know Dobermann history as well. Stay on topic. 71.84.116.43 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

History reports that Otto Goeller is the one actually responsible for developing what is today known as the Doberman/Dobermann by adding grey hound blood into the program...something that isn't confirmed to have been done by Dobermann himself. But, don't take my word for it if you wish. I agree this isn't the topic, I only used it to refer to why some choose to acknowledge the work of others that came before us. However, if you like, visit this website about the Dobermann http://www.barkbytes.com/history/dobie.htm SSDA

That isn't really what that article says. Again you show you are more interested in being right than you are in the truth. That speaks to your lack of credibility.71.84.116.43 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is just one article I quickly pulled up when doing a google search on Louis Dobermann and Otto Goeller. There are others articles that elaborate on this if you wish to do the research, but as you mentioned earlier...that isn't what this topic was about. However, if you don't want me to prove what I claim, than don't question it...because if I don't know something to be true, I won't say it is true. Hence the use of words or phrases..."Some believe" or "some speculate."SSDA

That is not what you said. However its a good example of how you try and twist things to suit your agenda and is another good illustration of why you're not a credible source of information.71.84.116.43 16:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What I said was just as Otto referred to his dogs (as he was largely responsible for creating what is known as the Dobermann today) as Dobermann Pinschers...naming the breed after Louis Dobermann in honor of Louis' work...just as we, the SSDA, have done with Swinford's name. Again, you are not providing published referrences, but only opinions...unlike what I have done...REPEATEDLY. here is another referrence. http://www.caninechronicle.com/Features/Horter_06/horter_906.htmlSSDA71.195.158.57 17:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All you're doing is using a search engine to try and support another one of your diversions. Again speaks to your lack of credibility.71.84.116.43 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about the Dobermann, so those simple referrences should do. If we were discussing the WP page about the Dobermann (which is not my goal), I would gladly provide more referrences to this. However, you are free to provide referrences to oppose the link I provided if you so choose. However...let us NOT forget, I am the ONLY one that has provided PUBLISHED referrences about the modern bandog and Swinford's work. If you would like to be considered "credible" feel free to provide even a single PUBLISHED (non-google) referrence that contradicts my statements about Swinford's work. And you talk about "credibility?"SSDA71.195.158.57 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, his books simply don't back up your claims about the significance of Swinford's work. You can list the same books a million times and they still would not. Thats the crux of the matter. 71.84.116.43 18:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's funny...being I quoted the referrences.SSDA71.195.158.57 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

2. What are these personal attacks you speak of? One only need look at your message board and a few others to see you making personal attacks against people who have nothing to do with this, as a result of things not going your way here. This is exactly what you hinted at in the email you sent me, and you made good. This is not the behavior of a person who should be eligible to make modifications of an article on wikipedia. It shows there is clearly a serious enough COI that it's made you act irrationally.24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Out of respect to Kmccoy, I am not going to go into a long drawn out nonsense post. Your attacks (such as your Swine turd website and other accusations) are clearly provided in the archieves provided above. Your COI lies in the fact that you train with someone that the SSDA does not endorse based upon his arrests and convictions of animal abuse.SSDA

You inflate the worth of your opinion. Nobody cares who you support or don't support. Nobody even thinks about you unless you're starting nonsense on a message board or attempting to alter history in favor of a registration that you operate. 24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Barbara

How is "reporting the documented history" that is varifiable altering history. The truth here is you are the one guilty of wishing to alter it...which is why YOU can't provide a single referrence to your speculatory assumptions. Please prove me wrong by providing a single referrence to a published text. It is obvious you can't do so, because if you could you would have already done so.SSDA

Please provide a single text that proves that Swinford was more than just one of a bunch of breeders at the time. Please provide a text that proves Swinford was a better, top, or even a reknowned breeder. Inclusion in a fighting dog magazine doesn't cut it, nor does inclusion in a fighting dog book. Please list Swinford's major accomplishments and any other highlights of his breeding career. 24.45.232.201 18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Please find a published referrence that says anything opposing or disputing the writings of Kelly or Semencic...or "my claims." SSDA71.195.158.57 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You say out of respect yet you still continue to spam this page with nothing substantial to prove your claims and again bring up irrelevant topics. 71.84.116.43 15:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kmccoy asked me to not edit the "article" page, but to instead discuss my concerns on this page...the "discussion" page. So, this is what I have done. I have provided published referrences while also responding to personal attacks, just as the one you made here. Everything I posted can is published and can be verified by 3rd parties.SSDA

paragraph break

What internet spam are you speaking of? Do you mean unsigned input here? People are terrified of you. Anyone who disagrees with you is potentially another victim of your smear campaigns. This is evidenced by how you bring unrelated dirt here to spread, and how you took the opportunity to spread lies and unproven facts about Joe Lucero's dogs and their origins. All as a result of people disagreeing with you and attempting to block you from making Wikipedia your free personal ad space.24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

I am speaking of undocumented acusational statements about Swinford and the SSDA that you have provided on WP discussion as well as on a number of forums. I can't smear what isn't already stained. I only provided facts with referrences. Perhaps you though should stop throwing false claims out. I have never made any false statements about Joe Lucero's dog either. He has done well with his dogs and if one checks the archieves they will see I said this all along. It is however a fact that Jaws was not produced by Lucero, but was purchased from a police officer in LA, Cal.SSDA71.195.158.57 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I never threw any false claims out. I merely posted up an opposing view given to the information you post. I didn't solicit this information, it was provided when you were making some of your claims about the greatness and importance of Swinford. Can you provide proof about the origins of the dogs you claim Lucero didn't breed? How is this a fact? Can you substantiate that "fact"? Can you state the relevance of including that here in the topic of why the SSDA, an organization with commercial interests, should or should not be included on Wikipedia and the importance of John Swinford in the creation of the modern bandog? I'm not seeing the proof or the relevance. 24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Perhaps you didn't realize it, but the article by Donald is not an opposing view. It even states that Kelly said, "Swinford's dogs were better guard dogs than anything else." As far as the origins of "Lucero's Jaws"...I have to ask, can you provide any evidence that he produced them? If you would like for me to provide my referrence to where Jaw's comes from, then you should email me...and I will do so. Than, you can post it if you wish. I mention it because YOU brought him into it by mentioning his development of the "modern" bandog and the truth is to develop something you have to be the one that created it. Well, his most famous dog is Jaws...which he did not create. I am certain you won't question my validation of this if you wish to contact me for it. Again, there are no commericial interests to the SSDA...as I said, it is not a money making organization.SSDA

Indeed it is an opposing view because at the time you were touting Swinford's dogs as champion dog fighters. The truth was, they were not, and you were ired beyond reason that someone dare say that. I don't need to provide any information about who produced Lucero's Jaws, because it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's you who has the burden of proof since you made the accusation that he didn't breed the dog. This is another smoke screen to get the focus off of you, and onto another in an effort to silence any efforts to provide a fair and balanced history of Swinford. Interviews with Lucero don't touch on the topic so anything mentioned by you is info. you acquired through the rumor mill. I'm not interested in anything but SUBSTANTIVE proof. It's irrelevant anyway. Whether he bred the dog or just trained the dog, the dog has gone on to accomplish things you could only dream of. 24.45.232.201 19:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Barbara, my advice to you here is you need to be careful about speaking slanderous statements and typing libel statements. The SSDA does not condone what you are suggesting. Kelly though did write that John did roll some of his dogs and that Bantu himself "would fight like any pit dog...and in addition was an EXCELLENT TRAINED GUARD DOG." Coming from Kelly, you can take those words however you want. You can use hearsay, speculation, the internet writings of some...or you can accept Kelly's words for how he himself chose to write them in the cover story of a journal he wrote.

Funny you mention Jaws and Lucero again...because I said you could contact me if you want proof to what I informed you of...yet, being I haven't heard from you I am left to assume you really don't want the information. However, I didn't make an accusation that Lucero didn't breed Jaws, what I told you was a fact...not an accusation. Feel free to contact me if you wish...and then you can come back here and apologize for your ignorance. As far as does it matter or not...well, that is debateable. Joe is an excellent promoter and apparently a good trainer too...but he didn't create a great number of the dogs he is getting credit for...and this is relative being we are discussing the creation of these dogs. Now, have a nice day. I have some dogs to work.SSDA71.195.158.57 23:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of publications documenting Swinford's work

What exactly do these published texts prove in your mind? The only thing they prove to me is that Swinford was fighting his dogs, which is why they were included in a pitbull fighting dog underground magazine. Why is it so important to you that Swinford, a dog fighter, be mentioned and revered in this site? There is no evidence to substantiate anything other than he was a breeder, and he fought his dogs as evidenced by his inclusion in the fighting dog magazine. How does that make him a modern developer? The bandog is not a dog bred to fight other dogs, by balanced, stable and responsible modern day breeders.24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

For one, it proves Swinford's work was well done, was directed towards producing an ultimate guard dogs, was founded primarily upon English Mastiff and performance APBT stock, and also that his work was very influencial to many bandog programs in existence today. There are other things it proves as well, but these are the major points. If you read the magizine you are referring to, you would know it sighted Swinfords work as being guard dogs...in fact, it is even stated by Donald that Kelly said, "Swinford's dogs were better guard dogs than anything else," and being Swinford's goal was to produce the "ultimate guard dog" that isn't a bad comment. Also, in the World of Fighting Dogs, it CLEARLY stated the match between Bantu and the Rottweiler was NOT to prove Swinford's dogs as fighting dogs, but was to dispell the myth that the Rottweiler was a true fighting dog. Again, you apparently haven't read these texts. Finally, it is my understanding that Swinford lived a generally good life, but like everyone made a few mistakes. Some of the practices by Swinford are unfortunate in my opinion...but opinions have nothing to do with real history. He who is without sin perhaps should cast the first stone. Making a mistake and LIVING a mistake (as in repeated practices of such) are two differnt things. Also, if history was altered based upon "good and bad"...than far worse by others would have never be reported to have happened. Is it "glamorizing" Hitler or Flad the Impailer by providing an accurate text of what really happened? SSDA71.195.158.57 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with most of this, and I won't dispute it. One question and conflict I have though is; how was his work influencial to many bandog programs, and how can this be proven? As an east coast bandog breeder in a day and age before the internet, how did (if in fact it did) his work become so influential? Was his work only known and popular in fighting dog circles because the readers of an underground dog fighting magazine had access to information about him, or was he known throughout the country and even the world? Please provide proof of how if you say he was known throughout the country and abroad back when he was alive. Or was his work made influential when Carl Semencic published his series of books? It also should be noted that Carl S. is not a respected authority in many working dog circles. Swinford strikes me as a legend surrounded by a blend of facts and myths, resurrected by an underground dog fighting magazine's 30 year reminiscence on dog fighting edition, or whatever you called it, and Carl Semencic's books. 24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Perhaps you should read all the referrenced material to understand this. In these referrences, it is clearly explained that the dogs were developed as guard dogs. SSDA71.195.158.57 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if Swinford is given a brief mention here in the article, because there is published info. about him, but to say he's a modern developer is grasping, at best. To also mention the SSDA in which you have a commercial interest in, is a clear COI. You are not a recognized breed club or organization like the AKC, and the other breed clubs that you mention are mentioned here in other breed articles. To attempt to inflate yourself to that status is outrageous when most of the bandog community doesn't acknowledge your registration/club. One of the main reasons bandogs are being bred today is because there are many who feel breed club organizations have been the downfall of breeds functionability. To mention the inclusion of a breed club in a bandog article is an anathema.24.45.232.201 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Barbara, There is no COI because for one...the SSDA is not a money making business. It is a pedigree tracking club/association. Two...this was all done AND PUBLISHED PRIOR to the creation of the SSDA. But, if you don't mind them being included then do so. Add them to the site. I am choosing to honor Kmccoy's request and will not do so. I am not saying Swinford developed ALL the lines of the modern bandog. I am saying he influenced many. I also am saying he was largely responsible for the Bandog being popular today. I am also saying he used English Mastiff and performance APBT as the primary component of his program. And, finally I am saying his work has led some to unite and develop the Swinford Sporting Dog Association (SSDA).SSDA71.195.158.57 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in editing this article to include Swinford because his reputation is questionable IMO, as are the facts surrounding his "fame". If I were to write a piece on Swinford, I would include EVERYTHING, not just what some want published. For this reason, I have no interest in touching the article. There's too many disagreements of fact, so out of respect for both sides opinions, I will decline. I also wouldn't say that he is largely responsible for the bandog becoming popular today because there's been evidence of bandogs in one form or other since the beginning of time, which to me indicates a popularity that came centuries before Swinford was even born and continued through out time. I also don't see any reason to include the SSDA in this encyclopedia article. I remember when you first started advertising the SSDA, back when you had the standard up, I'm pretty sure you were charging $25 to register dogs. It's common place in all registries to charge a fee, and the SSDA is also a link to your dog breeding business. 24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

So, you if you don't mind them being added to the site, just don't want to do it yourself...then what is the cause for the dispute about adding the published referrences and content? Apparently you did witness Leri Hanson's registration after all, for that would probably be where you pulled the amount of $25 from...because even though I TOLD HER (which you can confirm) she did NOT need to send any money in for registration of her bandog because we register working class bandogs at no charge. She chose to donate $25 to offset a recent printing that cost me about $300 for an updated layout of the SSDA forms. That was a sign of her support and it was appreciated. But, contact her if you wish to confirm it. OR, you can look on the SSDA form itself and see there is no registration fee presented. The funny thing here though is just on the other archieve you were suggesting Leri didn't register her dog with the SSDA. I find that ironic.SSDA

You've stated that I have a conflict of interest, and since that is your opinion, I shouldn't be writing anything. I respect that. Please stop bringing Leri into this. I'm sure she's mortified that this has become public. If she registered with you, she has her reasons, and as an administrator of a registry, it's your job as a professional to conduct yourself as one. Administrators of anything have an obligation to be discreet and keep personal information personal. Publishing this here in an effort to lend credibility to your fledgling organization only shows your integrity or lackthereof. I never said she did or didn't register her dog with the SSDA. I have no idea if it's true or not. You advertised the price of registration years ago when you were touting the standard all over message boards. [WHO WROTE THIS?]

A studbook (the book of registries) is not private. Her address and such though is private...and was not posted as a result.SSDA71.195.158.57 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of character; if a portion on Swinford is published, by your logic, it would only be right to describe who he was exactly. His demons, and his demise. 24.45.232.201 18:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

Stop bringing uninvolved parties into this. You've advertised before that the fee was $25. In the beginning you also required no more than someone to send you a videotape of a dog running then you'd allow it to be registered. In the other archive someone told you you lied about why she registered with you, not that she didn't. But she is irrelevant to the topic.71.84.116.43 16:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to such "advertisements." Relivance is a matter of opinion. SSDA71.195.158.57 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The SSDA certificate also has Robinson's home address on it. He has been running it since its inception.71.84.116.43 16:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I do the registration paperwork, but don't profit from it. Lieberman is the president of the SSDA and has been since its inception, but he is an "old timer" that was also partner's with Swinford for some time during the Swinford Bandog creation. He does not do the paperwork. Paperwork is secretarial in nature...not presidential.SSDA71.195.158.57 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

More obfuscation. There is a HUGE COI for you because YOU run the SSDA. It was Semenic who is more responsible than Swinford for the bandog being known because he wrote a book. If others had not shunned him and spoken to him instead then it would have been a different breeder in the book. Again, you are trying to distort history.71.84.116.43 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Obfuscation...well, better the truth than to distort. After all, whose work with Bandogs was the writing ABOUT again? Ofcourse, I am sure you don't want to admit it was Swinford's work.SSDA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.158.57 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No one ever disputed Swinford was in Semenic's book. Semenic was fascinated with dogfighting and Swinford was a dogfighter. Other dogmen wouldn't speak to Semenic so he spoke to Swinford. The books prove nothing about your claims of Swinford's influence on bandogs. You keep talking about proof and have yourself seen other accounts by people with no vested interest in Swinford as you have but discount them. That is why you're not a credible source.71.84.116.43 16:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read the published referrences I provided before commenting on them. Because based upon what you have typed, you apparently haven't done so.SSDA71.195.158.57 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of your COI. You refuse to acknowledge anything that may interfere with you making money from the Swinford name.71.84.116.43 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I make my living as a teacher.SSDA71.195.158.57 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What more is to be accomplished here?

It seems to me that we've reached a point where it's just degenerating into bickering again. Can you guys please take this to a different forum, away from Wikipedia? kmccoy (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'm asking that this talk page remain focused on the Wikipedia article, not on whatever dispute you folks have in other forums. kmccoy (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree...but if you want wikipedia to be respected as a free encyclopedia, than it needs to be educational...and should therefore require documented referrences when possible. It should refer to and include information published by experts and those who have done research...WHEN POSSIBLE...and in this case real documented publications exist yet using them in the bandog history you are choosing instead to rely on what is obviously a spam like dispute carried over from a message forum. What does wikipedia really stand for? Truth? Accuracy?...both of which are required for education to be real. What good is a "free encyclopedia" if it is not accurate or real?SSDA71.195.158.57 23:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, when you are replying to text, indent your text with :'s by one more level than the text above. Have you spent any time investigating the policies of Wikipedia, or examined how some of our best articles are written? Take a look at our featured articles, and look around the tutorials and help pages. Your rhetoric on a single talk page for an article really is meaningless when it comes to the overall project. It's also tiresome.

It's become pretty clear to me that your interest here is simply to promote your view and your organization's influence on bandogs in the Bandog article. Despite my numerous pleas, I see no attempt on your part to get a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and philosophies. Your rhetoric is frustrating at best, and inciteful at worst. You use language such as "libel and slander" (I would point out that a statement cannot be libelous and slanderous at the same time, because slander is transitory like speech and libel is fixed like writing, but whatever...) and your pseudo legal language borders on violating our policy regarding legal threats.

So, what I'm saying is, this needs to be finished now. If other users have new information or discussion they wish to add, then that's great. But the repetitive back and forth, especially between SSDA and Barbara, is finished. No more of it. Take it to your dog forums. I'm not eager to block anyone from editing, but if you folks continue to use this page as your battleground, I will do that. Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What kmccoy said. This isn't a debating society. This isn't a place to prove that you know the truth and everyone else is wrong. There are lots and lots of things that Wikipedia is not. A Wikipedia article is based on reliable sources and it reflects a neutral point of view when there are controversies around the subject. While we don't like to get bureaucratic around here, I would suggest that interested parties read the linked-to material, earlier, as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:SIMPLE). We do have standards and people who regularly and persistently violate them get blocked.

As I've followed the back-and-forth here, I'm beginning to wonder if the subject of the modern day bandog is not sufficiently developed in reliable sources for in-depth coverage in Wikipedia...? I'm not a dog person at all, just a Wikipedia editor who is waiting to see civil behavior and reliable sources. Studerby 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's address your comment about reliable sources. I would like to point out that Swinford's work has been sited in 2 books and 2 journals...all four of which were written before the SSDA was even created. The only opposing view comes from an internet message forum...with no personal knowledge of his work and with no referrences. I would expect an enclopedia to use published refferences when possible...and to consider such material as more valid than internet message gossipers that have not done the research. As far as the COI policy, I have read it and the SSDA is not in violation of it...but I understand you are unable to determine this given the spam of some...so I have honored your request not to alter the "article" page about the bandog on the WP site...but a true enclopedia would use referrenced material from published text...especially when there is no published conflicting view. The only conflicting view here comes from a message forum group. Now, as far as my comments go about Barbara making libel and slanderous statements...when she speaks false statements they are slanderous, when she types the same false statements they are libel...but whatever.SSDA71.195.158.57 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been no libel, and you're perfectly aware of that. The whole Don Stocks and Michael Sottile Jr. input came because you were attempting to represent Swinford's bandogs as something they were not. Your own words:

Lee: No offense Butto, but in referrence to the abilities the fighting ability of these dogs...let me ask you this. Don't you think Jack Kelly knows something about fighting ability? You know, Jack Kelly wrote in the journal that Swinford's dogs "could fight like any pit dog."

As found in the Swinford section of my bandog blog, on Molosser dogs, typed by your own fingers. Your claims are what prompted both corrections to come from two people who were around during Swinford's lifetime, and in the know.

Gentleman, (kmccoy and studerby) thank you for your patience and courtesy :) I apologize for this mess here and this is my last post. I've said everything that needs to be said, and anything further will just turn in to running in circles. Keep up the great work here. This is an outstanding site, and after this experience it's clear to me that integrity and truth are paramount here. Take care :)24.45.232.201 01:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara