Talk:Sergeant Stubby

message: I have added a legacy to the article, in attempt to show what happened as a result of Stubby being with the US Army at the front in WWII, the numbers of dogs, branches, where, and that an attemt was made, if only for that war, to get the dogs returned to society.  
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jai Raj (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy Added 

message: It's amazing how times have changed since Stubby was honored in WWI.  In 1989, the Denver, CO City Council passed a resolution banning these types of dogs from the entire city and county of Denver.  
Though this Wikipedia article doesn't say that Stubby is a "Pit Bull", the laws of Denver and many other cities would include Stubby in their breed specific ban only because of his physical characteristics without regard to his temperament or military status.  According to the City and County of Denver, Colorado, a pit bull is defined in the ordinance as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of these breeds.  If Stubby were caught by Denver city or county goverment officials today, he would be put to death.  
Denver's pit bull law prohibits any person from owning, possessing, keeping, exercising control over, maintaining, harboring, or selling a pit bull in the City and County of Denver.  The misdemeanor penalty for owners harboring an illegal pit bull is a fine of up to $1,000 and a year in jail.
In 2004, Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed a bill prohibiting local governments from regulating a specific breed - which applied to pit bulls, although technically they are not a single breed.  Denver suspended enforcement of its ban, but successfully challenged the state law and resumed enforcement of the ban in May of 2005. 
The Humane Society of the United States opposes breed-specific bans such as Denver's because the organization says many factors, including how the dogs are treated, determines violence.  
According to figures from the American Temperament Testing Society, a national nonprofit organization that promotes uniform temperament evaluations of dogs, the American pit-bull terrier passed its evaluations 83.4 percent of the time, just behind the golden retriever at 83.6.
Between May 9 and June 17 of 2005 more than 150 pit bulls and dogs with pit bull characteristics were put to death by order of Denver city and county government officials.    --mtnkjn 16:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breeds like Stubby are now banned in Denver, CO. 

message: Those poor pit bulls. Stubby looks so cute. This is a very adorable article. Any dog could be sweet or vicious depending how they are raised, so I guess I oppose a breed-specific ban too. It doesn't make sense. It would seem to only have PR benefits. Astrophil 17:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor pit bulls 

message: Interesting article. I do have a problem, however, with the sentence "Stubby attended Georgetown". Isn't it better to say "While John Robert Conroy attended Georgetown, Stubby was named mascot..." J. Van Meter 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgetown

message: For Stubby to be several weeks old in 1917 could possibly indicate that he was born in late 1916.  Unless a source can verify his actual birth-year of 1917, then it must be indicated as (c. 1917–1926) instead of just (1917–1926).  However, in this source from the external links, it states, "Stubby was a mixed-breed mongrel, at least part Boston terrier, whose story began in 1916 at the Yale Bowl in New Haven, Conn."  So, what's the birth-year: 1916, c. 1916, or 1917?  According to this source, it is simply 1916. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circa birthdate

message: Barely any of this information is sourced. Was stubby "the most decorated war dog of World War I and the only dog to be promoted to sergeant through combat" as the article says? I see no source for that. Also, none of the information in the "Life," "Military service" or "After the war" sections has sources either. How do we know somebody didn't just make it up? I propose that the unsourced material should be challenged or removed until proper sources are provided. 174.71.119.74 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed this is not properly sourced.  This is a nice story that pit bull fanciers cite back in forth on their web sites and it grows and morphs over time like a game of chinese whispers.  Give it 10 more years, and this page will reflect that it was actually General Stubby and that he flew a plane in battle. Wvguy8258 (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think he was elected president briefly after saving the world from fifty-foot robots 143.92.1.33 (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: You actually think a dog was promoted to sergeant?
Wvguy8258 (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  much of stubby is legend 

message: See ,  and . Stubby's decorations were given to him by others, eg Conroy. We shouldn't be suggesting they were official. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The US government does not give medals to animals 

message: This is also wrong and a bit of an insult to earlier war dogs. See Dogs in warfare. The Army used dogs in the Seminole Wars and the Civil War. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the first American war dog 

message: Would it be contentious to suggest that this article could be at Stubby (dog)? Most of the sources just give his name as "Stubby" GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that. It certainly matches the earlier sources, including the New York Times obituary. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Among the sources in our article, the sobriquet "Sergeant Stubby" is relatively rare and recent.  Lead sentence and paragraph should keep it, however, as some people call him that. I agree that a redirect should include the name. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  article name 

message: I'm told by a curator there that it is likely to be changed to reflect some of Ann Bausum's research. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smithsonian page 

message: regarding this change: oldid=530260139
* http://uswardogsmemorial.org/id16.html says April, 4th
* an article printed by the "New York Times", 4 April 1926 says, that Stubby is dead. Is it really likely that there are these news the same day he actually passed away? 
Isn't "March 16th 1926" more likely?
* historylearningsite.co.uk, 
--PigeonIP (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ann Bausum's book (which a Smithsonian curator told me was very good) says March 16th on page 220. So we can source it. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death 

message: Since artillery shells arrive moving faster than the speed of sound, as illustrated in the movie "All's Quiet on the Western Front", neither the sergeant nor any other being could have heard them coming.  That part at least is certainly a myth.  It is possible (but unlikely) that the sergeant could have seen them coming, and that tends to happen most often when the shell is headed your way.
Ealtram (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sergeant Stubby's hearing 

message: In the section entitled Military Service, the article states that he "served with the 102nd Infantry Regiment in the trenches in France for 18 months." The 26th Infantry Division did not reach France until September 1917 and was in training until January 1918. The armistice was signed in November 1918, and while it's true that the division wasn't demobilized until May 1919, it is a bit of a stretch to say that Stubby was "in the trenches" for 18 months. Eskiprof (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Stubby's combat service 

message: Regarding the text "American bull terrier" linking to the Wikipedia page for bull-and-terrier, the Wikipedia page in question does not mention American bull terrier as a name for bull-and-terrier so I'm wondering what the source is for that claim. The Ann Bausum source lists American bull terrier as a synonym for early Boston terriers, and in fact this is mentioned in the very same paragraph. I think the link to bull-and-terrier should either be properly sourced or removed. To clarify, I'm not proposing the removal of the text itself or mention of American bull terrier since it's been established that he was called that (again, like the early Boston terriers were), just the dubious linking to bull-and-terrier without a proper source. Perhaps that section could be cleaned up a bit to clarify that Stubby was a mixed breed dog but that (per Ann Bausum) he was likely part Boston terrier. Glitchhiker (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull and terrier seemed preferable to Bull terrier; it's pretty clear from photos that Stubby was not anything like what's currently known as a Bull terrier.  We're probably not going to find a source that uses the phrase "bull and terrier," it's just that's what seemed to be the closest Wikipedia article we have to the concept of dogs descended from a particular lineage. I'm certainly open to a better link if you can find one. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

text: That's fine with me, as long as the text makes it clear that his breed wasn't definitely known, and that multiple sources use the word "mutt," implying a mixed breed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The link to https://web.archive.org/web/20140624031648/http://amhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/exhibition/flash.html?path=8.1.r_15 is broken. That page on the Archive displays a loading page which never loads. (It is currently at reference #6.) As such, that information can't be accessed. What should be done about that? 1.126.106.17 (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Link Broken