Jump to content

Talk:English Mastiff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NPOV - "Important Notation"

I flagged this section of the article as it struck me as incredibly un-encyclopedic. It is entirely unsourced and reads as more of a rant than a relevant entry. I think it should just be deleted but comments would be welcome. (I'm not commenting on the truth or falsity of the "Notation" itself, just the manner in which it's being presented.) croll 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Update

The section has been updated/edited to give it a more neutral tone, while remaining factual. I hope this satisfies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastiffowner (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Move

I'm going to get it moved to Mastiff since that is by far the most common name, and mastiff is now just a redirect to this page. However, I'm not totally sure how to do this so it's at Wikipedia:Requested Moves#Uncontroversial proposals. That's why I changed the infobox (a bit premature). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do move this article to the subject "Mastiff" as there is no such thing as a breed named the "English Mastiff" in any country of the world. The breed's name is simply the "Mastiff." Thanks so much for picking up on that. Kimmorrell 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Excelling idea! English Mastiff should probably remain - with a notation that the proper breed name is the Mastiff - but is sometimes referred to as the EM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastiffowner (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The St. Bernard 'Benedict' was the biggest dog ever at 357Ib —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.104.31 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we need to capitalize Mastiff in every mention. If no one raises any objections, I'll go about correcting that in the next day or so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "Mastiff" refers to a specific breed that the expression "English Mastiff" is used for in Wikipedia, even though it is not used by any significant Kennel Club or breed club. The word "mastiff" is used for a group of breeds which have individual articles within Wikipedia. This article suffers from one or more anonymous "editors" who are continually inserting claims for a Saint Bernard called Benedictine as the heaviest-ever dog. These claims are entirely unsubstatiated by any records organisation. There is even a possibility that the weight quoted is from someone looking at a photograph!collieuk 11:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've seen that claim pop up, I'll be removing it now. The problem is, most breed names aren't capitalized, except for (usually) ones with proper nouns for names (i.e. Great Danes, St. Bernards, and such); not terrier, collie, or bloodhound. As an aside, I've never seen a real St. Bernard quite as big as a mastiff- close, but at least 30 pounds lighter. They just look bigger because they're hairballs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Zorba

I did order an hard copy of Guiness World Records book of 1989 and will see if the Zorba realy reach 343lbs. I will scan the page and upload it. So until this work done no reason to claim this is true using not reilable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastiffexpertise (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The State Gazette article is an animal shelter status update with a trivia section tagged on. That trivia section was attributed to pettrivia.com, which is currently a lapsed domain. And the article was written just 4 days ago. It's not a reliable source for anything.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to scan and upload. Thanks for checking! ErikHaugen (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
@Dodobird; that has been used as a source for months, since before I came to this article (in June); there's obviously a claim somewhere. I'll do some reading myself and see if I can't find something; obviously, if I can't, I can't. If that's the case, we need to do what I did in the St. Bernard article; state that the size in question is claimed, but not substantiated by records organizations, because we can't hold it up as definitive if there's only speculation (we can take the Benedictine discussion to the St. Bernard talk page as necessary). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about this reference(dated 12 August) which was inserted in this edit.--Dodo bird (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, now that makes sense. There was a more reliable one, at least at some point. Now I'll have to do some digging, so I'll see what comes up. I haven't done an exhaustive search yet, but I'll make time for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to get the gist here ; there must be thousands of copies of the Guinness Book of Records 1989 still in existence, and the 343 lb weight is given within.Collieuk (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have obtained a copy of the relevant issue of Guinness, and I was entirely right, other than I got the edition wrong, and, oh yes, the weight wrong. the greatest value of which they record as 338 lbs, with Benedictine's greatest weight listed at 310 lbs. The edition is the 1990 one. The subject of the dispute is really not the number, but which dog has the record as listed by a credible authority.Collieuk (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
So other than the two things you got wrong, you were entirely right? Actually you might be righter than "entirely right". If you look at this and this(91st edition) and this and this(92nd edition) Zorba actually did weigh 343 lbs. 319 lbs in September 87, 338 lbs sometime after March 89 and 343 lbs in November 89. Not sure when the 314.5lbs cited by user:Mastiffexpertise is from--Dodo bird (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where did you scan these texts but I also have 1989 edition and that master guy is right it sayd weight was 314,5. Also since Guinness stop the giving this record because it is not ethical to record a dog with his weight. (this was causing breeders force the animals and cause animal's life please stop adding this size record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.248.152.33 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So apparently Zorba gained twentyish pounds in the time between the two measurements. That's not unprecedented. As for removing it because of the effect on breeders, Wikipedia is not censored. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Between which two measurements? I have original copy of 1989 book and it is 314.5lbs and I did order 1990 and 1991, this scaned pictures doesn't proof anything. Whole page needs to be here with page numbers. Also, it is not a censore issue, it is an animal rights issue. It may cause several English Mastif' life. For me it is shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.248.152.33 (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not people act on information in an article, or how they will act, is not reason to exclude it. Wikipedia contains pictures of Mohammed, descriptions of explicit sexual acts, and spoilers for popular television shows. There's no reason to exclude a verifiable record animal size. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Click here for first image. If you search for "338" you will get second image. You can use the same method for the 1992 book.--Dodo bird (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Since that makes it clear that it's a Google books search and within what book the search is being held, that looks pretty conclusive that the page is from the aforementioned Guinness records book. A whole-page scan wouldn't add much. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have undone (for the second time) claims that the heaviest dog was the St Bernard "Benedictine". In the interests of neutrality, I have left a reference to this dog and the citations that were provided, while pointing out that those citations were not authoritative in the way that the Guinness Book of Records is. There simply does not seem to be a primary reference for the weight claimed for Benedictine, nor is there an expert secondary reference. All the references I can find are tertiary at best, and recycling the same phrases. In my view, the statements that are being put forward about Benedictine are not up to the standard of Wikipedia. I would be more than happy to put the matter forward for mediation. Collieuk (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Collieuk, I respect your point however this article has lot of cites even less turstable and authoritative, the cites on Benedictine are way more turstable and one of them is a kennel. Look these Mastiff cites: http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/other/donkey/mini/index.htm http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC_Museum/Permanent/Caius/Caius.html http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~awoodley/regency/devon.html Moreover book you present is http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0851123414/ref=oss_product original real book is http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553284525/ref=oss_product Look at the title you will see difference. The book become world record books after 2000, even they used this title before 2000, records not always claims for world records. There are lot of claims about this book is not trustable. So, original text about Benedictine already mentioning it is not from a record registering source but from successive studies no reason to change it and make readers possible this is some kind lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastiffkennel (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mastiffkennel, the first website you mention is that of the Animal Science Department of Oklahoma State University. This is an authoritative source. The distinction you make between The different publications of Guinness is only the distinction between the hardcover and softcover editions. The new reference you cite is a self-puplished commercial internet site. Much of it's content is taken from Wikipedia. This sort of circular referencing is invalid. In the interests of neutrality I will include this reference as well as a mention that Guinness is longer including animal weight records, but I am removing assertions that Benedictine was the heaviest dog, as there is simply no evidence cited. Repeated assertions by non-authoritative sources does not meet the standard of proof required by Wikipedia, and there does not seem to be anything on the net that substantiates this claim beyond the mere assertion. No St Bernard books I have found mention this dog either.Collieuk (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I hve now made the changes flagged up above. The remarks I made about the "new" website refer to the complete dogsguide website. The newest website you refer to, "Dogs Monthly", is similarly a non-authoritative, commercial site that draws its articles from the publication of the same name. It refers to more sources, but the only reference to Benedictine is the unattributed quote "Did you know? The world record for the heaviest and largest dog is claimed by a St Bernard named Benedictine, which weighed 162kg (357lbs)". This specifies only a claim, and not the holding of a record. Again, in the interests of neutrality, I have included this reference.Collieuk (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you about your modification on Benedictine, the original text already very clear and mentions it is not from GB and it is a claim. Your changes not fair and makes it like this is not just a claim but also like a lie. I am requesting you to stop this and respect my expertise about mastiffs (both St Bernard and Mastiff I have) I do not pick one against other and am being fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastiffkennel (talk • contribs) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I am being unfair, which is clearly not my intention, as I have taken on many of your modifications in my versions, but you have tried to insert a claim that Benedictine was the heaviest dog. I have reasonably called your sources into question, but still retained them. I have now found the later edition of Guinness that establishes Zorba's weight as 343 lbs, but more importantly, I have found the website of the kennels that bred and owned Benedictine, and they themselves give his weight as 310 lbs. There is simply no more room for argument, unless you wish to claim that there is some other Benedictine over 300lbs. If so, I ask you to specify what dog that is. I mean you no disrespect, but as you have brought up the matter of qualifications, you force me to state mine. I am a Mastiff breeder, a judge sanctioned to judge at KC championship shows, a former member of the OEMC committee, a former manager of the OEMC Championship show, a PhD-holding scientist, and the writer of a number of articles on dog genetics. None of these things make any difference to the fact that, with respect, you have not shown that there is no evidence of a dog named Benedictine weighing 357 lbs.Collieuk (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the double negative: you have not shown that there is evidence for a dog named Benedictine weighing 357 lbs. Of course no one can show there has never been such a dog, but without confirmable proof, the fact that this claim is asserted on the internet just doesn't constitute acceptable evidence There are quotes on the internet that tie this claim to "successive studies": what could this phrase mean? Clearly it does not mean that the dog was put on a scale and weighed this amount! In my view, someone has looked at a photograph and said "he is a stone (14 lbs) heavier than Zorba". Presto, 343+14=357. This is just speculation, and doesn't belong in the article, but neither does a claim that a dog weighed 357 lbs without any proof.Collieuk (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Heat and light

I stumbled into this as a reviewer. I do not have a dog in this fight. (I always wanted to say that.)

As I see it, we have 2 (or 3) earnest, reasonable people who are experiencing frustration from interpretations of data that seem to conflict. I understand the importance of Guiness, but that alone does not invalidate other sources, say a kennel organisation or show. (I'm not clear on this, but it appears Guiness may have changed their qualifying rules, which could imply more than one party is correct.)

I think Collieuk tried to compromise by including Mastiffkennel's references, but spoilt the effect with perjorative phrasing like "promulgated by a number of sources of unestablished reliability". In other words, he (or she) editorialised with a personal opinion which he (or she) blamed the other party of doing.

The proper way is to include the references without judgment, e.g,

Guiness reports xxx in 1993,[ref] and yyy in 2003.[ref] The Australian Kennel Club records zzz in 2005.[ref]

Be of good cheer. I don't think the parties are that far apart.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I take your point about the "pejorative phrasing", though it represents my honest view of the references presented. If it seems pejorative to a third party, it should and will be changed. I would point out a quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."Collieuk (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been away from this for quite some time, but I noticed this is starting to brew up again on the St. Bernard page as well. My own search for this turned up essentially what Collieuk's did; there's nothing but tertiary sources and/or speculation, whereas the story on Zorba is very well documented. The way it is here (and at the St. Bernard page, for the time being at least) is good until more definitive sources are found. Not that I particularly care one way or another, but the sources for Zorba's claim are considerably better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I undid Mastiffkennel's last edit in favour of the previous edit by The Blade of the Northern Lights, a neutral editor, because there was an unsubstantiated reference to "numerous" dogs, which in my few is disparaging and hence not neutral in tone. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.Collieuk (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Heresbach

Konrad Heresbach died in 1576, so the quote will be from an English translation of one of his works, possibly first published after his death. Please supply details so this date can make more sense. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not so hard: the English translation is apparently Foure Bookes of Husbandrie, collected by Conradus Heresbachius. … Newely Englished, and increased by Barnabe Googe, Esquire, first appeared in 1577; later edition 1596 is under Thomas Wight. This is the one according to this posting of The Mastiff: [1]. So the point is to find the original by Heresbach. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And from de:Konrad Heresbach this will be Rei rusticae libri quatuor. Universam rusticam disciplinam complectentes etc., 4 Bücher, Köln 1570. Date of 1570 does make sense. So I shall change the page now. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Request Image

The English Mastiff is a popular breed, can someone submit some better pictures of this breed. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 14:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I could submit excellent images of the Mastiff. How do I go about submitting images? Thanks. Kimmorrell 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We have three English mastiffs. If you need photographs how do I add them? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsroadrunner (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We raise mastiffs, and can supply photos as well. Are more photos still needed? Solinas (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

--Gary Dee 16:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User box for English Mastiff owners

This user is owned by an English Mastiff.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That's cute! 76.236.121.35 (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Clubs by country

Hello, I have added the "Clubs by country" as these webpages have a lot of valuable information about the breed. If you want to discuss, please lets do in the spirit of cooperation and to make the article better! IQ125 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have just explained on my talk page, lists of breed clubs are not included in dog breed articles. See the DMOZ link under the External links section. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on English Mastiff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_Mastiff/Archive_1&oldid=1142759906"