Talk:List of dog fighting breeds

The problem with lists?

I have to say the problem with these lists is that it gives an instant impression to a reader, without any of the depth or references in an article. I have removed the Cane Corso from this list as I have found no reference to this breed being used in fighting as a primary pursuit. I would hope that someone with some knowledge could edit this list and remove some of the other, err, unobvious choices... like the Chihuahua? Dachshund? Unless I am completely off base, these can't be right? Bassclef 18:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have looked a little deeper in this list. Has someone tried to sabotage it? Pomeranians? Poodles? Please! Every breed of dog has probably been used for fighting in an isolated instance - hell for bait dogs if nothing else. Shouldn't this list contain only dog breeds whose breeding was DIRECTED towards being better in the ring? Evil as it may be, it is part of these breeds history and character, and I'm sorry, a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle are definitely NOT. Simple research will show the Lab and Poodle being bred as hunting companions, from different regions and for slightly different purposes.

I am weilding a large scalpel today. Bassclef 11:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I've won hundreds on Yorkshire Terriers in the pit.

I'm removing the Yorkie from this list. Seeing it here made me spit my drink all over my monitor, yes, but come on.

Remove this page?

I'd argue that we don't need this page, because it's simply a list, and that's what categories are for. Since the creator of this page also created Category:Dog fighting breeds, which is easier to maintain (just add/rm catgs on individual articles), this page is redundant. If there's not a good reason for keeping this otherwise, I'll go ahead & make sure that all these breeds ahve the proper catg applied & then remove this pg. Elf | Talk 18:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm having 2nd thoughts. At the moment, all the breeds listed here happen to have articles, but if there were breeds that DIDN'T have articles, then this would be the only place to list them. That's why we also maintian List of dog breeds although there's a category:dog breeds (although in this case there are also so many alternative names that we decided to list common ones here as well, which would NOT show up in catgs...unless we can do categories on redirects now? not sure about that--) Elf | Talk 18:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sublists are common at Wiki the list should stay ! WritersCramp 22:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the best and cleanest way to deal with the categories vs. lists debate is to have a main article that describes the category (such as Fighting dog, Scent hound, or Terrier) then in the article you would have have a few examples of the dogs in that category in addition to a link to the category for the complete list. Therefore, think we should remove this page, remove the redirect, and create an actual Fighting Dog article at Fighting dog. I would agrue against a 'list of' type page except for those at the topmost level. Having multiple "files" (articles) that contain redundant data becomes a data managment nightmare (I deal with this sort of thing every day). I do agree that List of dog breeds is a good place to keep track of "not yet created" dog breed articles. Our goal should be to have clean, complete, and accurate data. To retain the completeness that the data points of these sublists provide - We should change each 'list of' article into a table rather than a simple list. One column would contain the breed name, and one column would contain the "categories" the dog belongs to. This way, people will remember which categories to add to the breed article when it is created, and all the data is there. But yeah, i'm asking for a lot of work to get that started :) - Trysha 18:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Fighting dog suggestion would definitely be more consistent with the way all the other dog breed types are handled. I'm all for that. However, I also like the idea of having a complete list there (which is what we've done for all the other types--well, OK, no one's gone thru all of them and made sure, but folks have been trying), not just samples. Maybe someday when we've got every dog breed known to man (or woman) in their own articles, we can replace these lists with links to the categories and just have samples, but meanwhile I think the sublists serve a useful purpose. Yeah, I know all about maintaining duplicate data in multiple lists, but I think 2 places isn't so bad.

I don't think that we want to change list of dog breeds to a table, though--there's so much info in that list, and it's bound to grow to many more hundreds of names than are already there, I just think that's too much. (But that's a better discussion for that article's talk page than here...) Elf | Talk 20:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This page does not belong to encyclopedia. How informative could this "list" possibly be? One can trace any given dog to a "fighting background", and most dogs to the wolf, as well. The list consists of randlomly chosen breeds. Manchester terrier, Bedlington etc ... what can they fight? Will bring this issue to breed clubs' attention. --Afru (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the list belongs a Wikipedia. The references for dog fighting are included in the articles, not in the list where they should be included. If you do not like the article post an AFD. Chessy999 (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just to WIKIpedia, but to any given directory. This topic is provocational and misleading by purpose. If it was about dogs of certain breeds, that had history of fighting dogs behind modern generation, it would have links and references to breed history of any given breed on the list. If it was about dogs that are fought nowdays, that would state so; as well links and refs, but that issue is already covered under dog fighting, where it belongs. This article is about impossible to maintain, as well as clarify the subject. AFD it is. --Afru (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Need TOC?

Next question-- Terrier, Scent hound, etc. don't have TOCs and just have the list alphabetized. There are only 30 entries on this list. What do other people think about just removing the letter headers and TOC? Elf | Talk 19:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the header should stay. Please don't transpose every dog related page to be the same, they aren't the same. Ciao LaLa 20:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, consistency helps readers start to form an idea of what to look for and where to find things; the exact content might be different but the kind of information is the same. Elf | Talk 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please elucidate me why you think NOT have a compressed TOC would make it easier for newbies to find info. My personal feeling is you want everything to be done the same i.e. YOUR way, rather than let things just flow LaLa 23:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the TOC and the headings take up fully half of the page space. I can see almost all the breeds in one window without the TOC and headings, but I have to scroll thru 3 to see it all with all the headings. That makes it easier to quickly see if what you're looking for is there and, I know you'll find this hard to believe, but not everyone in the universe has a broadband internet connection, and the fewer lines of download they have to do, the faster and easier it is for them. Elf | Talk 00:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You must have small fonts I cannot see the full page without the TOC, the TOC takes up one line that is it. LaLa 09:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said, "TOC and headings". Elf | Talk 15:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Soliciting votes

See discussion above on whether TOC and "A", B", C", etc. headers shd be included.

Looking for multiple opinions on how shortish lists like this should be handled. Compare this article to, for example, Terrier. I think the options are:

• 1. Generally don't include TOC and headings. (So, e.g., remove from this article.)
• 2. Generally do include TOC and headings. (So, e.g., add to Terrier.)
• 3. Doesn't matter, leave it however someone puts it.
• 4. Add toc and headers only if more than xxx items in list.

Votes:

• 4 sort of. Now that I'm forcing myself to vote, I'm trying to pick a number that seems reasonable, and that's hard to do. I'm thinking 50, but maybe that's too many--so I'm starting to waffle. Elf | Talk 16:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1 The TOC makes the page look ill presented and messy. The Terrier page looks far more proffetional and visually pleasing. People arent stupid, they dont need need a TOC to tell "A" from "B". If someone whants to look for a specific breed, they either scroll down untill they find it or simply CTRL + F their query! Its really not rocket science! Tekana (O.o) Talk 18:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• 2 or 4. I think the Terrier page would look better with the list broken up somewhat. I think the section headers add too much space and I don't see much point to the TOC. I do think some lower impact separators would be nice. Dsurber 22:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• 4 I think we shouldn't have the list, but if we do have the list, I would say 4. Visually, a huge list is unappealing and hard to deal with if its one long list, a short list is cluttered if you have headings. - Trysha 18:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem

Stop adding 'pit bull' to the list. The 'pit bull' is not a breed of dog. And when using pit bull, one is most often reffering to the American Pit Bull Terrier. There is no need for 'pit bull' to be on here.

Also, does anyone have proof of amstaffs being fought? Amstaffs were bred away from the APBT to be show dogs and pets with little game drive. It's highly unlikely that a dogman's going to use an American Staffordshire Terrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pit Bull is a dog hybrid used for dog fighting, therefore it belongs on the list. Chessy999 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pit bull is a hybrid of dog and what exactly other animal ?

IMHO, the root problem with this list is that even through it was possibly put together believing that will possibly a need it, there is no way to maintain it in an Encyclopedia.

Maintaining a list, if the list is to keep, needs an expert in the subject, i.e. in this case, an expert in a history of fighting dog breeds.

Highly unlikely that there is an expert in this subject that will possibly participate in maintaining such a list for the reason that it will be a total disrespect to himself. Not to mention, that dog breeds history experts are hard to find.

Any lay person that may believe that (s)he is such an expert will primarily continuously misrepresent the subject as well as WIKI.

IMHO, this bird was not born to fly; let's invite an expert to see if there is anybody willing to work with this. --Afru (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I know enough about this topic Pit Bull means a "Bulldog" breed with dog fights in "Pits" end of story, it should be on the list. Pit Bull meets the criteria to be on the list:

This is a list of dog breeds originally developed for, or commonly used at some time in their history for dog fighting.

You posted your AFD +tag and the consensus was to KEEP the article, now bugger off. Chessy999 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed. Expert needed. References needed. Keep to improve. No such thing as "Bulldog breed" in Encyclopedia. Re-name the list as " List_of_Dog_Breeds_That_Were_Used_Or_Originated_For_Fighting" to fit the description above, as it currently does not. Said enough.

Picture of "fighting breed" that is currently on the list is here : --Afru (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bedlington Terriers were used for dog fighting one time in their history. Here is the citation from the article.

These do-all dogs were able to do almost anything asked of them, if in classic terrier manner. In contrast to its placid appearance, Bedlingtons would have to be able hold its own when pitted in dog fighting contests and was particularly well known to fight to the death when set upon. Shaw, Vero. (1879 - 1881). The Classic Encyclopedia of the Dog. ISBN 051743282X In addition, it was fast enough to bay a badger or a fox and was a first-rate water dog. Chessy999 (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That was in 1880, and the author changed his description the following year! (See Bedlington talk page.) I do feel that tagging the breed as a "fighting dog" puts peoples' modern day pet Bedlingtons (described as "a dog with a good nature and mild manners") in unreasonable danger from Michael Vick wannabees looking for a dog to steal to train their "fighting dogs" on, as the reference from the Wikipedia article is widely reproduced on the web.

Also, if today's inoffensive pet Bedlington must be tagged as a "fighting dog" on antique and marginal evidence, then ALL dogs should be tagged as "fighting dogs" since it is remotely possible that some ancestor of every living dog today was used at some time in the past for now illegal dog fighting.

Hafwyn (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bedlington's were used for dog fighting in their history it is well documented. That was in their past, not their present. Virtually, no dog breeds are used for dog fighting any longer, as it is illegal in most countries. However, it is still part of the breed history. Chessy999 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

BOXERS???

Boxers were most definitely used as fighting dogs...as a matter of fact they are still used today!! So, why does someone keep deleting this when I put it up?? Read everything about Boxers and you for sure will find out that Boxers used to be fighting dogs! Can we please put them up, it is not historically accurate to omit them, because today they are lovely companion dogs, though even still most Boxer's want to fight other dogs...it is in their breed specific genes...the truth is the truth and the past is the past. Anyone else agree with me?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.107.176 (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Boxers were never used as fighting dogs. Chessy999 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

yes they most definetly were! I am out of town, but I have over 3-4 books + magazines, when I go home I will cite these...what information do you have?? Except your opinion and self-righteousness, which don't count, bring proof otherwise, when I bring 5 different references I hope you will back off, though I imagine like everyone else in this world, you will be difficult, even if I brought a 100 experts and a 1,000 references you would be the type of person that would have their fingers in their ears...one citation I do have is...

"Originally a dog for hunting pigs and bears in packs and later abused as a FIGHTING dog" (Hegewald-Kawich, 2005).

Hegewald-Kawich, H. Dogs: From A to Z. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series, 2005.