Talk:Bandog/Archive 2

message: Allow information on the history of Swinford to be included in the article, as it is a topic some people are interested in, but forbid inclusion of the SSDA because they are a modern breeder with commercial interests which is a violation of Wikipedia standards.  Including a breeder who uses the name of a deceased breeder would be no different than me, or anyone for that matter, deciding I'm going to be a breeder, and because I respect Joe Lucero's work, naming my breeding project Lucero bandogs, thus attaching my efforts to someone who's made a name for himself.  Highly unethical.  Then to further lend credibility to a project that's accomplished nothing, carefully orchestrate a loophole (the SSDA) to get my efforts recognized on sites that ban commercial interest links, when all else fails to get recognition by the real experts in the field.  Every reader is a perspective puppy buyer.
Before Mr. Robinson persists in dragging people who are irrelevant to the topic, controversial 'facts' about same without substantiated proof, lets keep this about the topic at hand.  The topic at hand is the ethics of including the SSDA, an organization with commercial interests, on Wikipedia and a proposed solution to the matter without losing the reader in thousands of words that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
24.45.232.201 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that a significant number of the "Lucero" dogs were not bred by Lucero...including his most famous dog "Lucero's Jaws." Jaws happened to be bred by a cop in LA...and was purchased by Lucero. The biggest difference between Lucero's dogs and Swinfords are...Swinford used game stock APBT and English Mastiff...and produced his own stock. Lucero often purchased APBT/Am Staff x Neapolitans/Cane Corsos and some times bred these dogs back to Neapolitans. Lucero has accomplished a lot with his dogs though and IMO he should be mentioned on the Wikipedia site IF WP is going to mention the work of breeders. However, if they do that they most certainly should include an accurate description of each (Swinford's work and Lucero's work).SSDA71.195.158.57 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true at all...which is probably why your don't sign your comment. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a comment made by an IP proxy server as is frequently done on message forums. The fact is Barbara and others with opposing views have a COI because they have issues with the SSDA since the SSDA does not support those who have been convicted of felony behavior...because it is a law abiding organization...but none of this changes the fact that the SSDA is only a club association dedicated to the development of the breed, nor does it change the fact that the SSDA does not make money on registration forms. EVERY breed on wikipedia lists breed clubs and organizations. The Bandog shouldn't be any different. And, who better to do this than someone who has access to the true history and that has done the research?And, being Barbara has posted a link to this discussion on the bandog banter (anti-SSDA group which supports convicted animal abusers), of course posts have been made that "concur" with her opinion. The thing here to notice though is my comments are not made on opinion, but upon sited documentable referrences. SSDA71.195.158.57 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Solution from Barbara

message: Why not create a new Wikipedia page about the Swinford Bandog and on that page include the information about the SSDA instead on the current "Bandog" page. On the current page, we could create a "relative topic" link to go to a new page on WP about the "Swinford Bandog." On that page, more information can be reported about how the SSDA is making efforts to recreate and preserve Swinford's work and such...and the current Bandog page can be left as is by only briefly mentioning Swinford's work as it is now. The site would not mention any kennels, but only go into details about Swinford's work and the work of the SSDA in general.
Besides, some effort needs to be made anyway to distinguish the current Swinford from the general Bandog as well as distinguishing between the "old history" from "modern history" of the bandog as the two really have very little in common besides a name (also varifiable by documentable text referrences). For one, Bandogs of old were did not contain APBT influence...and while some Bandogs today do others do not. There is variation there that the Swinford type does not have as all Swinford types do have APBT. Next, Bandogs today are not used to catch pouchers...none of them. Bandogs of old originated in England. Today modern general type "bandogs" are produced around the world, while the "Swinford" type bandogs originated in the US. And, a list of other variations too exist...but due to limited time I will save further explaination of the differences for a new page should one decide to be created. This is just one more possible solution. SSDA71.195.158.57 01:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your documentation has been shown to have major flaws.  The problem isn't mentioning Swinford but your insistence on inflating what he did.  Your solution is merely another attempt at self promotion.71.84.116.43 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   A Better Solution  

message: In the July-August 1972 issue of the Sporting Dog Journal, Jack Kelly wrote up a brief story about Swinfords dogs, which was the "cover story" of that issue. Some 30+ years later, Kelly again wrote a brief article of Swinford's work in a book. In both cases, Jack Kelly acknowledges the use of the English Mastiff being bred to game APBT dogs. In his book, Mr. Kelly states, "John was intent on establishing his very own breed of dog by crossing his English Mastiff to an American Pit Bull Terrier." In the 1972 July-August issue of the SDJ, Mr. Kelly gives referrence to the English Mastiff, the APBT, and also refers to some of the other foundation breeds used. It is in this journal that Mr. Kelly states, "John's ideas of breeding these dogs was to try and take the desirable qualities of each breed and through selective breeding to produce an all-purpose guard dog that was a game fighting dog." Mr. Kelly also gave reference to Swinford to the fact that even though Swinford himself did not keep pit dogs, he did love all dogs. He further described Swinford as a person who was always willing to offer his services to do whatever he could as a veterinarian for various dogs and dog clubs.
In The World of Fighting Dogs (1984, TFH publishing) and also in Gladitor Dogs (also TFH publishing), Carl Semencic gives extensive referrence to Swinford's dogs being developed as guard dogs, and how they influence other bandog programs.SSDA71.195.158.57 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be mentioned Carl Semenic as a credible source is debatable in the dog community.  Many regard the books as poor sources of information but with nice pictures.  Robinson claims that is opinion but its no different than his opinion that Semenic's books are good sources.  Add to that a mention in a fighting dog journal does not add any weight to the claim that Swinford developed the modern bandog, that he's had a major influence on breeders all over the world or that his program had any long term success.  There are conflicting reports on that from people that were there.  One being on like the name or not, http://swineturd.blogspot.com/ and other articles on Barbara's site echo the same and have other sources.  None of the people who wrote any of that have a vested interest in Swinford as Robinson does, they are merely writing about history.   Instead of seeking out ALL sources of information, Robinson is only gleaning from what supports his view.  71.84.116.43 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The above only confirms Swinford bred bandogs but does not support Robinson's exaggerated claims about his program.  There is no "group" out to get Robinson they merely recognize that he has a vested interest in the SSDA and should not be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote it. 71.84.116.43 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You speak too soon, again without knowing. That article you presented was written prior to the SSDA's creation. It just so turns out that Martin Lieberman is the acting president of the SSDA...and has been so since its creation. Thank you for the support (although it was made unknowingly). SSDA71.195.158.57 00:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated, the article proves none of your pie in the sky claims and this is the first time you have mentioned Mr. Lieberman being president of the SSDA.  The address on the registry is also your address in Brandon.  Your claims of no COI are demonstrably false.  Again, it speaks to your lack of suitability to edit the bandog article.  71.84.116.43 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it is not the first time. You just haven't done the research. If you view the "Swinford Bandog" site (Origin of the Swinford and the SSDA) you would know this. I will quote it for you here in itallics..."If you obtain a copy of Semencic's book, you can see on the acknowledgment's page the names Martin Lieberman and Kevin Covas. Martin, Kevin, and I have discussed the history of these dogs (and bow hunting) on many occasions. Martin Lieberman was very familiar with Swinford's work and for a number of years was partner with Swinford in the development of the original Swinford dogs. Mr. Lieberman's involvement included not only keeping various Swinford type dogs and arranging various Swinford type breedings, but he also wrote the original Swinford breed standard for John Swinford. This original standard has since been revised by the Swinford Sporting Dog Association (SSDA) and adopted as the Swinford breed standard. Since Mr. Lieberman was personally and closely involved in the Swinford project, we believe him to be today's leading authority of the original Swinford project. For this reason, Mr. Lieberman has been the acting president of the SSDA since its creation. SSDA71.195.158.57 03:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (see comments below)
I ask then why Mr. Lieberman doesn't make ANY mention of the SSDA in this article?  IN FACT he mentions quite clearly another Bandog breeder you have had Ill words with in the past "(the group)".  I believe the article to stand on it's own merits for what it is and propose this as just another one of the attemps to HIJACK history as it was!  Again more to the Character of Mr. Harold Lee Robinson!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.113 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently you didn't read so well. Do you not know what "prior to the SSDA's creation" means? How can he mention the SSDA in that article that didn't exist at that time? SSDA01:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documented referrences to Swinford's work