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 second the above. The Cane Corso and Fila Brasiliero are working mastiffs, they are used as guard dogs and stock dogs. Both have been used for hunting big game and for herding cattle, more so in the case of the Fila, but neither breed has ever been bred or selected for the purposes of dog fighting and the pages for these breeds confirm that. Historically there is no evidence to support their inclusion on this list. The definition of 'fighting dog' owes more to knee-jerk breed specific legislation in the 1990s than it does to any attestable cynological evidence.

Unregistered User: Dr Michael Tate FRS, 02:45, 25th January 12009HE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.51.177 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2009 (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.

I don't think this list can be done sensibly. Maybe an _ancestor_ of the modern Boston Terrier was used as a fighter but I seriously doubt that it was much like the modern breed. And there are several other breeds listed that just don't belong on the list. Also, there are some very big breeds listed that were never _commonly_ used as fighting dogs. For one thing, if your dog was too big, no one would match him with THEIR dog, so you couldn't get fights and would go broke feeding him. On the other hand, there was an Airedale Terrier, not on the list, who was widely reputed as the best fighting dog in the country for a few years. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

The pitbull is no more a hybrid than any other breed. In fact pitbull is just an abbreviated version of American pitbull terrier, which is already on the list.--81.170.7.123 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (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)

Less the Bedlington, more the Rothbury Forest terrier which was the ancestor of both Bedlingtons :::and Dandy Dinmots. Some lines of working Bedlington lines can be very feisty, the Gutchcommon line :::and the Rillington line are both very hard dogs indeed and will fight silently to the death if :::given half a chance. However, they are primarily working dogs, it was their ancestor that was used :::in fights, but, in those days any terrier would have been fought in that region.--81.170.7.123 (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2009 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.107.176 (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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. ISBN 0-7938-0499-X> Chessy999 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is taken from a web site with link included.

"Originally bred for dog fighting and bull baiting, the Boxer can trace its roots to the 16th Century. To compete in such ferocious activities these dogs needed to be strong, aggressive, and courageous. Today's Boxer retains all these traits, but uses them now defensively rather than offensively. Boxers are also intelligent and motivated to please. A keen sense of hearing makes them superlative guard dogs."

from http://www.pgaa.com/canine/general/boxer.html

Let me know if link doesn't work. I have several more sources. I am not trying to argue, the Boxer's most definetly have been used as fighting dogs, though not as notorious as Pitbulls, Cane Corso, Brazillian Mastiff, etc...they have been used and are still used in the inner cities today. I will bring several more credible sources, when I return home. Honestly, I am not trying to cause a fight or do I really care if you let me put them up...I just want to show you that yes, most certainly have Boxers been used to fight other dogs. Besides the Boxers first purpose was most definetly not as a guard dog. They were used as Bull Baiters or Boar and Bear Baiters. That was their first function, once that was outlawed they became primarily family guard dogs and also as military/police and today narcotics, search and rescue, theraphy and assistance, they are an incredible dog, but the truth is they were and have and will be used abused in dogfights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.107.176 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another pasage from the internet

"The Boxer originates from Germany and comes from years of crossbreeding, starting with German Mastiff-like dogs and later crossing them with English Bulldogs. The breed has been used for many purposes in the past from hunting and working to herding and fighting. Once known as an aggressive, ferocious breed, the Boxer has become a gentle yet protective dog that enjoys the company of humans and other animals when properly socialized. The American Kennel Club first registered the breed in 1904."

from,

http://www.kingdomofpets.com/dogobediencetraining/dogbreeds/boxer.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.107.176 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another

"The Boxer was developed in Germany around 1850 through crossing German bulldogs with the English Bulldog. Boxers were once used for fighting and bull-baiting but over the years their aggressive tendencies have been largely eliminated. The modern Boxer has become an ideal family dog. The Boxer was ranked 7th out of 154 dog breeds in AKC registrations in 2004."

http://www.dog-breed-facts.com/Breeds/boxer.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.107.176 (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

One more...

"The Boxer was developed from European bulldogs and originates from Germany, where he was bred to be a fighting dog and a bull baiter. The Boxer was also used in police work. This breed was registered with the AKC in 1904."

http://justdogbreeds.com/boxer.html

The truth about Boxers

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)

This goes to show how little you know!! The boxer was developed in 1895 from a Bullenbeiser type of dog with a bulldog, there is also speculation that a terrier and mastiff were crossed in too...but there is no proof. But as far as a boxer being used for Bullbaiting is WRONG! Bullbaiting was illegal by 1850...45 years before a boxer was created!! The boxer was designed to be all-purpose dog, this included, butcher's dog, guard/attack dog, police/military and of course dog fighting...ask any expert, this is the truth!! boxers don't start fights with other dogs because they are bored, it is a deep-seated instinct from pit-fighting days! This is why Wikipedia is lame, some spoiled cry baby brat who thinks he is right and refuses to find out the information, and this spoiled baby can just omit the truth because he personally disagrees, even though dog experts and every book about dogs and boxers state that boxers were used as fighting dogs...your the "know it all-no nothing" bossy creep who knows a little about everything and ALOT about Nothing. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.223 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Amstaff

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)

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)

List needs major, major work

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)

• KEEP - the list should stay and the references/citations should be in the articles. Unfortunately, lovers of the breeds often delete the citations as they do not want to admit or are ignorant that their breed was bred for or once used in dog fighting. However, the list is sound Green Squares (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

this list will only do harm to dog breeds

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)

Agreed! Also, a total waste of online space, has nothing to do with Wiki principles, such as providing educational, verifiable materials in an encyclopedic manner. Misleading; an attempt to classify something that does not group together. --Afru (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing Kangal

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)

hayyyyyyyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.160.254 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Why Does it say that Olde English Bulldogs are extinct? They arent, my aunt owns several and I looking to buy more. They are still around.

Why were the sources removed?

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)

Perro de Presa España

• 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)
• Maybe they meant Spanish dogo, also known as Presa or Perro de Toro Español. But I don't know if this breed was used in the dog fighting. Adventurous36 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Fila Brasileiro

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)

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).

fighting dogs

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)

Hello Jason stathem (talk · contribs), 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).

Retitle to "List of historical dog fighting breeds"?

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 breed x was originally bred for dog fighting. Is this article historical or is it about present-tense dog fighting? The void century (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)