Talk:Greyhound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Dogs
 Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Vulnerable Native Breed

This breed is classed in Britain as a VNB - a breed which originated in the UK but now has registration numbers with the Kennel Club of less then 300 puppies per year.

I'm a Canadian teenager on a gap year before Uni and I'm really interested in this. Would anyone like a VNB paragraph/link on this page? I can write it, but am ignorant about formatting etc. Plus, I'm trying to put together a whole collection on all 29 breeds on this list, including history and so on, using Wikipedia as one of my many sources. If you can help, or are interested at all, please contact me either on my talk page or at green_ied_dragon@hotmail.com

--The Wizard of Magicland 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed Comments

Since someone marked three statements in the article as disputed, but didn't bother to explain why I'm tempted to remove the disputed claims. However that seems inapproprieate here, so I'll provide my arguements for supporting the current statements.

Claim 1: racing

The article states: "Changes in public opinion regarding blood sport has essentially removed the Greyhound from hunting and relegated the breed to parimutuel stakes racing."

In a section about Greyhounds in racing, it seems like this is about right. One might suggest that the section should be renamed to be something like "Greyhounds as working animals" or "Greyhounds in Sport" and more detail about other work they perform might be suggested (vet research is about the only other "work" I'm aware of modern Greyhounds doing, and I'm aware of no other legal modern professional sporting).

Claim 2: Conditions

The article states: "The conditions under which racing greyhounds are kept are considered by some people to be inhumane."

As someone with a companion Greyhound I would like to say that I believe the care many of the Greyhounds I have met was inhumane (prior to being picked up by adoption groups). The deaths of large numbers of dogs due to basic lack of medical care is well documented. While some people feel the treatment is acceptable, others feel it is inhumane therefore the statement is accurate. I'm not clear here what is at dispute. I think a longer discussion of treatment is more appropriate in the article on Greyhound racing, and indeed there is more there.

Claim 3: Killings

The article states: "In the late 20th century, many Greyhound adoption groups began taking Greyhounds from the racetracks when they could not compete and placing them in adoptive homes. Before this, most retired Greyhounds were killed(disputed — see talk page); some still are."

Again this is well documented. I'm not clear what is disputed about this statement. Only one US state requires that all racing dogs be adopted, all others allow for the euthenization of the animals and conditions are worse outside the US. If someone would like to propose alternative language, that may be proper, but it seems to me that the current statement is accurate.

If other users would like to propose alternative wordings to these statements I would see that as a part of the wikipedia writing process, but simply removing them would (in my opinion) remove important information.

--Ahc 14:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user has repeatedly removed these statements with no justification and has now inserted the "dubious" clauses. These items aren't dubious. One can start looking here and here for information; there's lots more available. If the anon person would like to discuss why they think that these claims are dubious or otherwise discuss why he/she wants these statements removed, but otherwise it appears to be vandalism. So I am reverting again. Elf | Talk 20:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
works for me --Ahc 02:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't see much dubious about these sentences. They may be somewhat offensive, but only in their content. They are definitely a fair description of reality, so they should stay. MasterDirk 12:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The comments highlighted as 'dubious' are tendentious and the writer’s opinions should not be so near the surface in a Wikipedia entry. There are other forums for opinions.

We've listed some reliable sources to back up the statements as fact. Can you list some reliable sources that show that they aren't? Elf | Talk 17:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The point is that the entry for ‘greyhound’ is almost wholly from the perspective of the dog lover/rescuer perspective. Admirable in itself, but not right for a Wikipedia entry. It is apparently OK to use a loaded remark like "The conditions under which racing greyhounds are kept are considered by some people to be inhumane." And justify its inclusion by saying, essentially, that it’s true that some people believe the statement, so it can be included in the entry. But you might equally say: "It is some people’s opinion that President Bush is a religious zealot with the IQ of an amoeba." The statement itself is so loaded that it is obvious that the writer is using it as a ‘no comeback’ way of putting forward their world view. In a small way that’s what’s happening here. And Wikipedia shouldn’t be hijacked anywhere to put forward the narrow views of special interest groups.

If the paragraph in mentioned you adjusted as follows you would you be more comfortable with it?
In part due to the fact that some people feel the conditions under which racing greyhounds are kept are inhumane, in the late 20th century, many Greyhound adoption groups began taking Greyhounds from the racetracks when they could not compete and placing them in adoptive homes. Before this, most retired Greyhounds were killed; some still are.
I know it's a small change, but it tones down the statements, and makes them part of the background. My other problem is that this makes the sentence too long, but that could be fixed with more thought. Since all the information is true, and is there in part to direct people to other articles (I'll add a more obivous link to the GH racing article in a moment) that cover the issues in more detail, and in part because racing is what people think of when they think of Greyhounds. The other word I questioned changing was killed but since euthanization is not universal for those dogs not adopted, I'm not sure what another appropriate word is in this context. --Ahc 21:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Information/Possible Example to Assist

O.K., so maybe I'm way off base here, but which Greyhound do you feel is the most well-known in the world? Which Greyhound exemplifies all the more positive aspects of this breed? Which Greyhound has his fame rooted in his original owner repudiating and ostricizing him as a racing dog who was well past his prime and irresponsibly turning him loose on the streets to live or die as fate chose? There is only one Greyhound I know of that meets all these criteria and more.

Unfortunately, he is also a fictional cartoon. Still, as a pop culture icon that exemplifies many of the points made in the article, wouldn't Santa's Little Helper be ideal to include as a broad socially notable example of the breed and their characteristics? Weaponofmassinstruction 04:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How world-wide known is this dog? I happen to know who he is because I watched a few episodes of the Simpsons, and I know that the Simpsons are popular--but world-wide? I have no objection to mentioning it as an example, however, with enough info to put it in context for those unfamiliar with the simpsons. Elf | Talk 23:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Valid points all. I'll get back to you with international syndication data.... once I find some. (Sure would be nice if they were in the Wikipedia) Weaponofmassinstruction 04:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to Internet Movie Database, the Simpsons is translated into 12 languages other than English: Spanish, Albanian, French, Japanese, German, Russian, Hindi, Swahili, Swedish, Turkish, Cantonese, and Mandarin.

Additionally, the same source lists Rating Certifications in 9 Countries outside the North American Continent (for a total of 12 when you include The United States, Canada, and Mexico): Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Singapore, Spain, and The United Kingdom. This of course precludes any country which does not have/use Rating Certifications, though I cannot see any rationale for translating to Russian for the Brazilian market.

I would think this qualifies as fairly International recognition, provided that the IMDB hasn't mucked it up and missed any. Weaponofmassinstruction 06:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then it does make sense to add something. Go for it. Elf | Talk 07:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SLH Stomach Problems

User:Ahc has indicated that Santa's Little Helpers' stomach problems were probably bloat. From what I can recall, the animated character Dr. Hibbert diagnosed this problem as either "twisted bowel" or "twisted stomach". Since I haven't confirmed that either of these two terms are actual Veteranary or Medical terms, I left them out. Anyone feel like clarifying this? Weaponofmassinstruction 18:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I only have vage memories of that episode as well, but twisted stomach is one of the forms of bloat (current bloat article needs work from what i can tell). I know Hibbert didn't call it bloat, but that's common to GH's and probably what inspired the thought. If it bothers people I wont be insulted in the least if the comment is removed. --Ahc 20:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it was "twisted stomach."

It doesn't bother me in the least... I was just kinda hoping to have the whole "probably" bit clarified with something a bit more definite. I've got some time on my hands, I'll cruise the rest of the net for more info to verify just what to call it. Weaponofmassinstruction 03:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research to sort that out. --Ahc 04:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption Links

I am afraid that if we continue to include a link to every adoption organization in the country, that will overwhelm this article. Perhaps beginning a new article on Greyhound adoption would be appropriate. Mikieminnow 02:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There already is an article on Greyhound adoption, and yes, in general we've been moving links to adoption groups there. --Ahc 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitches

Please don't remove the correct nomenclature for a female dog.Mikieminnow 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I agree that some links should be removed, perhaps the greyhound-data link could be restored as it refers not exclusively to one subset of the greyhound breed. That site (which I have no affiliation with) actually provides quality information on any type of greyhound, especially pedigree and prospective breeding info. Mikieminnow 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already on the Greyhound racing article (labeled Comprehensive database), which is where I personally think it belongs. If others feel strongly that it should be here, I'm open to other options. The links I removed looked fine to have on Wikipedia, I just thought they made sense in other places (in part because they already were). --Ahc 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Since many of the Greyhounds listed on that site are not of track breeding, the link should be on a general Greyhound entry instead of specific Racing entry. Actually, I'm not sure I see the harm in having this link on both pages...Mikieminnow 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the concensus on external links to (personal) forums and such? They pop up every day it seems, and I'd like some reassurence before I delete them. Edokter (Talk) 13:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm for removing personal links. Here's what I found in a FAQ:

Is it OK to link to other sites, as long as the material is not copied onto Wikipedia?

External links are certainly allowed. Properly used, they increase the usability of Wikipedia. Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a web directory; external links should support the content of the article, not replace it. An article should be more than a container for external links, and the content should not require the reader to leave the site to understand the subject.

Please do not place advertising links in Wikipedia. Commercial sites are obvious, but this prohibition usually includes links to fansites and discussion forums as well unless the site is a notable one in the field. As a general rule of thumb: if you wish to place the link in Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to a site, it probably doesn't belong here.

The current convention is to place external links in a separate "External links" section at the bottom of the article. Sites used as references for the article should be listed under a "References" section, or sometimes placed within the article as a footnote. See Wikipedia:How does one edit a page for different ways to create external links.Mikieminnow 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size

in the American Kennel Club website (akc.org) the weight of the Dog is 70 pounds (32 kg).

Perhaps. But this article covers size ranges, not standard. To many Greyhound owners, the AKC is far from the definitive source on Greyhound information. Also, please sign your comments in the future. Mikieminnow 12:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

36 kg it's 80 pounds not 90 pounds.

if the AKC isn't a definitive source who kennel club is the source?

For starters the vast majority of Greyhounds in the US (let alone worldwide) are not AKC hounds. The majority are racing hounds and do not meet the AKC breed standard. There is no kennel club that sets a standard it is an issue of measuring the dogs. If you review information from groups like Adopt-a-greyhound you will notice they provide feeding guidelines for greys up to 118 pounds. At a quick glance online I didn't find good numbers outside of the rules for dogs that are racing (and most of those have to do with sudden changes in weight). When I have more time I may try to flip through a few books to find a more reliable measure.
You are quite right that we'd allowed the metric and US measures to get out of sync. I took a moment just now to correct that, thank you for point it out. --Ahc 03:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Rating

I rated the article as B-Class this morning. My general thoughts are that while the article has developed decent content, it lacks adequate references. This information still feels a little thin as well. --Ahc 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ill Treatment of Greyhounds

I feel there is a complete lack of information about the ill treatment of greyhounds. A search BBC new search reveals quite a few articles about the abuse of Greyhounds. I don't know what its like in the rest of the world, but in the UK, thousands are abandoned and brutally killed each year, as any news site will inform you. Please can someone add something about this, I would but I do not believe i could be impartial on this matter, and any addition by me would be biased.

Maintaining a proper balance in this article is quite hard. Most people (that know about greys) feel very passionately about the treatment of racing dogs, one way or the other, there is very little consensus. There is a longer discourse on Greyhound treatment on the Greyhound racing article. If you feel more content is needed here, go ahead and add it (with references please), other editors will work to protect the neutrality of the content, and you'll learn better form as you go. --Ahc 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media -> Pop Culture

I'd like some discussion about this change. I don't feel that Pop Culture accurately describes the material in this sub-heading. For example Don Quixote is to me not pop culture but more media (not in the sense of news, but in the broader sense).

Mikieminnow 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I felt it better described the section then 'Media' did, as that only relates to thing like TV, movies etc, but certainly not Greyhound busses... At least 'Culture' can relate to anything in life. Edokter 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mikieminnow that 'Pop Culture' doesn't seem accurate. I think I'd rather see us either use something like Cultural references to Greyhound. At the very least I think we should switch to Popular Culture since we should avoid using abbreviations without introductions. --Ahc 14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It is 'Popular Culture'. Only Mikieminnow referred to it as Pop Culture. Edokter 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of how I referred to it, Pop*ular* culture is a misnomer. According to the Wikipedia entry, "Popular culture, or pop culture, (literally: "the culture of the people") consists of widespread cultural elements in any given society". Since we are including references to Greyhounds from different cultures and societies, this transcends what should be classified as Popular Culture. I do like Ahc's suggestion of Cultural references to Greyhound. Mikieminnow 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I can agree to that. My biggest gripe was that 'Media' was totally irrelevant. Edokter 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Americanization" of measurerments

I'm not too happy with the "Americanization" that just happened. As far as I know, The US has adopted the International System of Units (SI), meaning metric measurments are preferred. I don't mind inches and pound added, but I think we should adhere to international (and US) standards and place metric standards first. --Edokter (Talk) 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not use the International System of Units. Since this is Wikipedia English, written from an American POV, the primary measurements should be in American units. Mikieminnow 12:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Uhm... Wikipedia being an "English Language" encyclopedia does not mean it is an American encyclopedia. Articles are usually written from a global POV from the entire English speaking community. I've asked for some input on the Village Pump. --Edokter (Talk) 13:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Several months ago we converted all measurements to metric since it was my (and others) understanding that metric first was the Wikipedia standard. We've also worked hard to avoid this article becoming any more from American POV then it already is. The policy about measurements was posted at the village pump in response to Edokter's comment is here. It's not as strict as I recall it being, but I don't see a clear reason here not to use SI measure measurements. Since the measurements are still unsourced (something we should really fix) the case of dispute leaves us without guidance. I'd like to propose that since the metric units have stood for several months without problem, we return to them until we can come up with a good reason to pick one or the other.--Ahc 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree with that. We might encounter a problem sourcing the sizes/weights since the Greyhound as a breed has evolved into several specialties. What might be common for a show Greyhound might not be common for a pure racing dog. Australian racers may be smaller (or larger) on average than American racers. BTW, didn't mean to offend when I stated that this was American POV. Mikieminnow 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Last time I tried sourcing outside of the AKC was harder then I expected, although I didn't take as much time to look as I should have. Thank you for agreeing to revert for the time being, I'll do that now before too many more changes get made. I'll try to replace those that were useful since then. --Ahc 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The general rule of thumb here is when the subject of an article is about an American topic, (i.e. B-52 Stratofortress), we use U.S. units primarily and metric units secondarily. When it is about a topic that isn't specifically American, like this one, we use metric units primarily and U.S. units secondarily. Perhaps an article that is about a topic that is of no great interest to a U.S. audience, (like Copenhagen Metro) can omit U.S. units completely. --rogerd 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's input. I had mis-interpreted this rule of thumb and applied what I thought I had understood to the article. I hope we don't go to the extreme of omitting US measurements as many Americans don't have much reference to metric units. Ahc, I think we will find it difficult to establish standards for different types of Greyhounds. Most people who accept the AKC (show) type as standard won't accept race or international type as a standard and vice versa. There is much debate in the Greyhound community regarding correct type, perhaps that should be explored more in the article. Mikieminnow 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV edit?

Should I revert this? --Edokter (Talk) 12:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's pretty much already taken care of. Take a look at it again and see if you think more might be done. Mikieminnow 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Still feels pretty biased to me. I'm not clear why the paragraph is needed, but if we keep it the pro-senior nature of it needs to be addressed more aggressively. --Ahc 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and took it out. Perhaps information about adopting seniors should be in Greyhound Adoption.__Mikieminnow 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
If someone contributes some there we can think about it. Again, I'm not clear that much discussion of seniors is needed, but that's just my opinion, so I'm open to whatever people add. --Ahc 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 2nd fastest land animal?

I believe the Gazelle hold this title, not the Greyhound.

[edit] Proverbs link

Proverbs 30:31 doesn't identify the greyhound, as far as I can tell. The word translated in many translations as "greyhound" is the Hebrew word "zarzir". That just means a creature full of energy (from "zariz", meaning energetic). Sure, it could be a greyhound. Or it could be a horse. Or it could be a cheetah. We don't know. -- Dreamer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.6 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ban on owning grehounds in England

I believe that there was a ban on anyone owning grehounds (in England) unless they also owned land - on the basis that they were hunting dogs and you had no reason to have them if you did not own land on which to hunt. I read it in a history book recently and will try to dig it out for a reference... unless someone else gets there first. My reason for bringing this up is the changed perception of the grehound following the beginning of racing in the early 1900s. --Purple Aubergine 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a ban on owning Greyhounds in the UK but that was quite some time ago (can anyone pinpoint the exact date?) as they were supposed to be owned by "nobles" only. Nowadays they make fantastic companions (I should know as I have an adopted ex-racer) and are loved and cared for by their owners regardless as to whether the new owner has land. My Greyhound is extremely happy in his new life - I think the runs on the beach help! I believe the current perception of Greyhounds is shifting from purely hunting/racing to acceptance that they make wonderful companions as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'llgethim (talk • contribs).

[edit] Mac

I have added Mac (from the TV series, Clifford the Big Red Dog) to the notable greyhounds part. --Sharpay Evans 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's notable enough; even the Clifford's article doesn't mention a character named Mac. --Edokter (Talk) 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. He's in about half the episodes and even has merchandising based on him. --Sharpay Evans 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreyhound_7f61.html"