Talk:List of dog fighting breeds

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Need TOC?

message: 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)
thread_title: Soliciting votes

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

text: The boxer was a hybrid used as a guard/police dog and in 1902 was recognized as a show dog.  It was never bred for or used for dog fighting. <Fleig, D. (1996). Fighting Dog Breeds. T.F.H. Publications Inc. > Chessy999 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BOXERS???

message: The Boxer was not developed until the late 1800s.  The Boxer was a hybrid of of several breeds including the Bull Biter and bulldogs, which were bred for bull-baiting not dog fighting.  The place to discuss this matter is at the Boxer article and add a section for dog fighting with your citations and add the :Category:Dog fighting breeds, then add it to the List of dog fighting breeds.  I am no longer going to discuss this further. Chessy999 (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The truth about Boxers

message: The American Staffordshire was a breed created from the American Pit Bull Terrier for the direct purpose of being a show dog. It was meant to have the looks and attitude of the APBT without the fighting drive. As the Amstaff was never intended as a fighting dog, shouldn't it be removed from the list? If we were to add all breeds that have been used at one point or another, you could add just about any breed.
76.89.24.7 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to discuss this at the American Staffordshire article, to build a consensus. To me Staffordshire Terriers have a long history of dog fighting, so they would belong. Thanks Green Squares (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amstaff 

message: Last year, this article was nominated for deletion.  The consensus was that it should stay because it was a discriminate list. That is, the items on the list were not arbitrary, but were reliably shown to belong on the list, and items not on the list can be reliably shown to not belong.
When this article was nominated for deletion, one of the claims was that there are no references for the breeds that are included on this list.  Not only here, but also on the articles they link to.  My reading of the discussion was that people thought this could be addressed; the problem wasn't fatal, the article just needed work.
Now, a year later, I went through the first 17 breeds listed here (A-D).  12 of them have no references in the main article that supports the statement that they are fighting dogs, or were bred for that purpose.  A vast majority have survived the year following the AFD nomination without being referenced.
I'd personally argue that this is not a discriminate list.  What does "dog fighting breed" even mean? That they have used for dog fighting? Lots of breeds have. That most owners who own one include it in dog fighting? No dog would meet that standard.  That the explicit intent of the original breeder was to create a dog-fighting breed? That is a really hard thing to prove. I'd be surprised if half the dogs on the list meet that standard.
I'd further argue that the fact that so many dogs are haphazardly included on this list supports the statement that it is not a discriminate list: if there truly existed a non-controversial category of dogs called "dog fighting breeds," this list would be far better referenced than it is now.
I feel justified in deleting every entry that does not have an explicit reference in the article to dog fighting.  That would lead this list looking very, very silly.  For instance, the American Staffordshire Terrier would not be included on the list. Yup, not even the Staffy has the claims about fighting referenced in the article.
For the editors that feel this list should exist, and should exist in a non-silly form, would you be willing to fix the article?  
--Thesoxlost (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't propose deleting the list; although there was contraversy, there was clear support for keeping it. I sympathize with the problem; articles that fall in the fringes of WP can be taken over by a cabal of editors with an agenda. That can happen on dog pages. But if there is a reference that clearly supports the statement that a dog is a fighting dog, then its deletion solely on the basis that someone is a lover of the breed would violate WP guidelines.  Those edits can be reverted. If consensus cannot be found at those pages to include the dog in the category, then, even if you really think its a fighting dog, it shouldn't be included here.  This fight really needs to be waged at each of the individual pages. Otherwise there is no WP:RS basis for a breed's inclusion on this list, and WP becomes contradictory. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List needs major, major work 

message: I have never seen any evidence of cane corso, neapolitan mastiff or dogo sardesco being used for fighting.
This list will only land some dog breeds in a "dangerous dogs" list, without them having ever done anyhting wrong...let alone fighting!
I would delete this list althogether  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  this list will only do harm to dog breeds 

message: Kangal is not a dog fighting breed. It has been used in dog fights, but so has any other breed an idiot wants to throw in a pit. It is, and has been a livestock guard dog for 2000 years or more. Delmet (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The OEB is an extinct breed of dog.  There are only recreations in modern times. IQ125 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Kangal 

message: I do not think the Molossus and Alpine Mastiff were never bred as a fighting dog.  They were bred as a war dog and livestock protector.  Please feel free to comment, so we can build a consensus.  Thank you IQ125 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Molossus]] (extinct) and [[Alpine Mastiff]] (extinct) 

message: For a dog to be on the list it had to have been bred and used for dog fighting.  Both the Cane Corso and Dogo Argentino, while strong and formidable dogs, they were bred as guard dogs and/or for coursing.  They were never bred for dog fighting, so they do not belong on the list.  IQ125 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cane Corso]] and [[Dogo Argentino]]

message: Hi, if you wish to participate the article is up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable fighting dogs. IQ125 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of notable fighting dogs]]

message: I provided legitimate third person sources proving some dogs are used for dog fighting what's the problem? IQ125 Dwanyewest (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were the sources removed?  

message: * I question whether the "Perro de Presa España" should be on the list as it is not notable.  I did a search on Google and nothing is showing up.  In addition, there is no article about it on Wikipedia.  What do others think? Aquataste (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Perro de Presa España]]

message: I'm from Brazil and I don't know any brazilian historical sources that determine the use of the Fila Brasileiro breed in dog fighting. In Brazil the breed is not used for dog fighting. I believe this "information" started with the U.K. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that restricts four types of dogs, including the Fila Brasileiro, as dangerous "fighting dogs", and many sites subsequently reproduced the same "information" to this day. Adventurous36 (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just looked through my books and done a quick search online, and could find nothing that says they are used for dog fighting, whilst their uses are very well described. The one source that is used on the page seems to be an ASPCA staff writer rattling off the four big banned breeds in quick succession. I support its removal from the list. Cavalryman (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fila Brasileiro]] 

message: Rottweilers are common fighting dogs if you want to see it go m.my.mail.ru or m.vk.com Jason stathem (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello , everything on Wikipedia should be cited to a reliable source, without which it could very easily be original research. Unless you can provide a reliable source stating Rottweilers are (or have been) commonly used for dog fighting the breed will be removed. Cavalryman (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  fighting dogs 

message: I don't know anything about this subject, but I saw the AfD and decided to comment. This article seems reliably sourced, but a lot the sources seem to present information in the past tense, as in . Is this article historical or is it about present-tense dog fighting? The void century (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, dogfighting is still going on today, so I'm not sure why it would be purely historical. Geogene (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sources are historical, then it would be WP:OR to broaden the topic beyond that. A historical dog fighting breed is not the same as a contemporary dog fighting breed. Just as Persian means something different depending on whether it's referring to contemporary Persians versus Persian Empire. The void century (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that's something that should be left up to sources to distinguish the two, or not, and not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. If sources don't distinguish the two, then it's OR claim they're not the same thing. Geogene (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retitle to "List of historical dog fighting breeds"?