Talk:Rottweiler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. Once references have been added, please remove the unref=yes switch of the {{WikiProject Germany}} template on this page.

I have just changed the caption for the lovely photo of a Rottweiler. The former caption read that the dog was in an aggressive stance, but with the dog's relaxed mouth (with tongue hanging out) is a better example of an alert dog.

It's not very neutral to say that a "well trained and responsive 'Rottie' is a great pet...", or that the bad press Rottweilers have received is unfortunate. Guanaco 03:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree this is a pretty biased article which conveys about what the author feels are good things about the rottweiler. While I am not disputing that I have to say Wikipedia aims to have a neutral attitude and for that the article definately should be edited

• Those are minor changes that you could have made! :-) I'll clear those out. Elf | Talk 04:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree. I believe that both of those statements are fairly neutral. The 1st is a fact... a well-trained responsive Rottweiler IS a great pet. In regards to the 2nd, the bad press is unfortunate... the Rottweiler population in North America currently numbers between 350,000 - 400,000 animals (est.). Given that population size, the number of negative incidents is certainly not at all excessive (i.e. the breed is not predisposed to violence against humans). Furthermore, would it be too bold to suggest that we humans are a far worse 'breed' than Rottweilers? We are certainly more likely to hurt or kill each other... :)

• • "...makes a great pet...", well, we don't know what kind of pet someone would want or could manage given their lifestyle. There are many people & families for whom a Rottweiler will never make a good pet no matter how well it's trained. So you could say that "a well-trained and responsive Rottie is a better pet than an untrained and unresponsive Rottie" (although one might argue that "better" is POV in some ways...) but saying it's a great pet is not a fact.
  • "...is unfortunate...", well, if someone believes that it's a good thing that people don't get Rotties unless they really know what they're doing, then them getting bad press is a good thing. So you could say that "Rotties have received bad press." But whether it's fortunate or unfortunate is in the eye of the beholder. Elf | Talk 22:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 War dogs?! 2 Death By Rottweiler 3 Objective Assessment 4 5 External link request 6 Recent edits to article 7 Medium-large? 8 Redirecting??

[edit] War dogs?!

There are several references in this article that claim that Rottweilers were 'war dogs'. Hmmmm... perhaps. But the bit about them being formed into dog-only platoons to attack the enemy sounds a little far-fetched. Did flying pigs airlift them into battle?! I think someone should find a reliable source for this info or delete.

[edit] Death By Rottweiler

I didn't revert the deletion of the note about the deaths caused by Rottweilers because I don't understand the signifcance of it. For example, according to this survey, 39 deaths were caused by Rottweilers in the U.S. between 1979 and 1999. What makes these noteworthy? Elf | Talk 02:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yes, that's a good point. I think the section can be improved to give a better understanding of the issues - those would be useful as examples of the press given to Rottie attacks, and the information in your source would be very useful in demonstrating that they are high on the list of dogs most likely to cause deaths. In my experience some of the smaller breeds are much more prone to aggression than Rotties, but if one of those attacks they are not as likely to be able to kill. It's the combination of strength and occasional aggression that is particularly problematic (that said, I love the breed and they are, in my experience, usually lovely characters). My concern is to ensure that we acknowledge both sides of the debate and don't leave out negative information in the name of NPOV -- sannse (talk) 21:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted last two comments. Let me remind potential posters that Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussion pages are for discussing the article with which they are associated. i.e. Please discuss Wikipedia's article on Rottweilers here, not your own Rottweiler.

[edit] Objective Assessment

(new wiki user) I think it is very important to note the danger these animals pose to the general public, in particular children. Yes, any dog can attack, however it is the scale and ferocity that makes this noteworthy. Blaming bad owners is fine, but doesn't change the speed with which a rottweiler can cause serious damage. In the UK, a rottweiler is the most lethal weapon it is legal for most people to own and take with them as pedestrians. Sorry if this comment is in the wrong place.

Regardless of this, the author of this article is clearly biased toward Rottweilers and it is not objective. Compare it with, for example, Wikipedia's far more balanced article on the Pit Bull , which mentions Rottweilers as being the second most dangerous breed of dog, without accounting for the fact that many victoms mistakenly identify Rottweilers as Pit Bulls.

Should it be 19th century? : "However, by the end of the 18th Century the breed had declined so much that in 1900 there was only one female to be found in the town of Rottweil."

1) There are typically many authors of each article; it all depends on who has info and the time to add to the article (hint hint). 2) Yup, probably shd be 19th cent. Elf | Talk 7 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

I think this article needs to be more objetive, as it almost forgets that this is a dangereous breed. Even in the German Shepherd Dog (which is not considered as dangereous as the Rottweiler) article it says that unproperly trained dogs can be agressive, and if it is the same with Rottweilers, it should be noted that Rottweilers can be unproperly trained easier than other dogs. It should be noted that I know nothing about dogs, I just know that I'm worried about the Rottweiler that my front neighbour has, which barks horribly at anyone that walks in front the house (this also makes me less objetive about this kind of dog). I'm also sorry about my ortography as English is not my firs language. Thank you very much. Nicanor5

This article seems to focus too much on trying to repair the reputation of the rottweiler breed. A Wikipedia article should not be a soap box upon which a person tries to push their opinion.

re: objectivity. From 1991-1999 an average of 20-30,000 rottweilers were registered per year, 41,776 in 1999 alone (akc.org). The percentage of rottweilers who bite as a percentage of total population is actually extremely low.

True. See discussion in dog attacks on exactly this topic. Elf | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 21:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

• Isn't the Rottweiler trained to attack due to neglectful owners? I have heard they are abused and some bite a lot. Well, I think the reason why the Rottie has gotten a bad name is because of they are used in illegal underground dog fighting rings (I am not kidding), severe cases of biting (where they injure or even kill a person), or a poor owner/trainer. I know for a fact that Rotties are actually good dogs that weren't trained to attack, but for caring for people and the owners.--VelairWight 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between dogs who are trained to attack--which is a deliberate effort by a human--and dogs whose genes make them inclined to attack--which is under much debate. It looks as if you're using "trained to attack" to mean "inclined to attack", although I'm not sure. Certainly if a dog is deliberately trained to attack, that's not a neglectful owner; that's an (IMHO) irresponsible owner deliberately doing the wrong thing. I think, if I understand what you're saying, that the article already says basically the same thing; they're historically good dogs that some people have misused. Elf | Talk 17:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that this is a GREAT and extremely fair article on the Rottweiler breed. As an experienced and responsible dog owner of many breeds, the Rottweiler has an unjust reputation all over the globe. As with any breed, the behavoir of the dog is nearly 100% dependent upon the owners and their ability to raise dogs properly. Rottweilers, Pitt Bulls, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinchers and other "aggressive breeds" are only consider as such because of the severity of their bites and their "macho" status. All breeds bite, however, some are so small or weak that their bites are insignifant and, therefore do not suffer bad publicity. This article is completely unbiased. Including "bad points" on this breed would create a bias. There is nothing inherently bad about any breed which causes the "bad points" or "good points" to not be facts, but bias and hearsay. I applaude this article for helping educate those that are unfamiliar with Rottweilers.

Though I'm sure you right about the fact that all breeds bite, you said yourself that Rottweilers have more "bad publicity" because they're bites are more dangerous than those of smaller, weaker breeds. That basically means that yes, they do in fact pose more of a danger than, say, a chihuahua. Supposing all dogs bite the exact same amount, or heck, that the weaker breeds with the insignificant bites attack MORE often, Rottweilers would in fact still pose a much greater danger. And I'm sure it's true that the behavior of any given breed of dog is largely dependant on the owner, but in that case, a Rottweiler with an irresponsible owner is still more dangerous than a chihuahua with an irresponsible owner. I'll admit that I don't know much about dogs in general, and maybe some of their notoriety is a bit exaggerated, the same way the movie Jaws stigmatized sharks. But while I feel sharks have an unfounded "HOLY CRAP RUN" connotation, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's "unbiased" to point out in the shark article that sharks have been known to attack people. --Foot Dragoon 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

==

Can this be temporarily locked? after the baby was recently savaged, there is going to be a lot of bad press and the normal shouting match. whatever the result, it should not be CONDUCTED on the article page.

[edit] External link request

Dear Mrs, Mr,

I am a the breeder of rottweiler vom Thrudvangar kennel. I have an experience of approximately 10 years about the rottweiler and all his aspects. I would like to contribute to the article on the rottweiler in wikipedia because it is a great source of information. Although some of these informations are quite outdated and need some feedback to keep up with today's reality. For example I have edited the history part of the rottweiler article which his very important for any people concerned with this breed. As a breeder, I regularly participate to the big rottweiler shows ( Klubsieger, Bundensieger, Europasieger, Deutchmeisterschaft ...) and I keep up with all the current information related to those events and the rottweiler topic. In conclusion, I'm asking for two things :

- contribute to the article as an editor ( I have already started to write some information )
- get an external link to my website which is http://www.vom-thrudvangar.com as this Rottweiler vom Thrudvangar

Best Regards Lutfiye Oztel (representant of the Vom thrudvangar kennel).

Oztbrott 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions would be welcome, no need to ask for pemission. "Anyone can edit". See Wikipedia:Introduction for some editing guidelines (for example, edits to the articles are not signed). This won't, however, entitle you in any way to "get a link". I don't see anything on your site that would make it an appropriate external link for this article. Femto 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers.

First of all, I would like to develop this article by appending information related to the rottweiler since the ADRK was created.

Spreading the European news to other continents is also one of our objectives ...
Our breeders participate to nearly all big rottweiler shows occuring in Europe. As a result we obtained a huge collection of rottweiler pictures. This whole represents an essential source of information for anyone interested about the rottweiler. Collecting the most current information and offering it was our primary goal when we created this site.
One can obtain the right to copy our pictures by asking for permission : a truly little effort !

By being a true visual information source, we think that our website qualify for Wikipedia free encyclopedia.

Rottweiler Vom Thrudvangar

Oztbrott 22:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several freely licensed images available from the Wikimedia Commons repository commons:Rottweiler to which you are invited to contribute, so there is no need to link to external galleries. Femto 11:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is probably a misunderstanding ; Your gallery isn't a real view of the breedind of the rottweiler . I have already around 200 Mo of photos concerning one part of the best rottweilers in the world. You have change the external link ; why ? Do you think that all this links give information about rottweilers ? I think you have to do link towards websites representative of the rottweiler. My gallery isn't only photos, there is very important information like parents, which give information about the genealogy. I do a request to do a link towards site like the american rottweiler club and the ADRK ( German rottweiler club) and mine, All this websites give information and are here to promote the rottweiler. I hope you will understand my request.

It simply isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to collect links to sites such as yours. Besides, I have my doubts that your homepage is of similar notability as those of national breeder associations, and it's already a stretch to assume the external links section should be a listing of them. It will suffice for the goals of this encyclopedia to refer to an open directory which provides those links. Femto 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, why don't you do this for all the subjects in wikipedia ? If I understand wikipedia's goal is to explain a subject. Do you think the Open directory explain or show something to the readers? Lot of websites has informations for people who wants informations but the open directory's goal isn't to give information.Wikipedia have to direct all the people who wants much information towards this kind of website. It isn't a problem for me or for my website but it is certainly a problem for the credibilty of wikipedia and the reality of the rottweiler.For me link towards, the ADRK( http://adrk.de/) the american rottweiler club (http://www.amrottclub.org/), the belgium rottweiler club ( http://www.rottweilerclub.be/) and some very good site like (http://www.rottweiler-erhardt.net/) and mine are important.There is other site also which are interesting but I have probably to understand that only someone who knows the rottweiler can approve the link........ By !

Links to specific webpages (webpages, not websites) with extensive specific information, for example on the history of rottweilers, may be appropriate, until Wikipedia's article improves beyond it. Endorsed by some other editor, not only by the owner of that site, and preferably from a site with no commercial interests. Indiscriminate collections of links to club's or breeder's websites with no immediate information, on the other hand, are not appropriate. Half of your club links aren't even in English. Those websites, as well as dozens others, with all their information, are available through the directory link. Wikipedia's goal is to give information, not to direct to it. A directory's goal isn't to give information, but to direct to it. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Glad we straightened that out. Femto 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to article

Hi, EinsteinEdits. I see you recently added a couple of bits to the article. One is redundant; the first sentence in the "Temperament" section makes it clear that Rottweilers can be loving comapnions, so there's no need to repeat that. The other is a note that you can find ttack stories about any dog. This may be true, although I'm not personally aware of many people savagely mauled by Chihuahuas or Teacup Poodles. But regardless, as written it suggests that Rottweilers are no more dangerous than other dogs. If that's true, which runs counter to the rest of the article describing them as war dogs, you'll need some citations for that. On Wikipedia we don't print our own opinions, but only opinions that that can be verified to come from reliable sources. William Pietri 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

William there are more poodle attacks in this country and rottie attacks and it is unfair to aim the article at the concept off rottie attacks. to be fair you would need to go through every single breed on here and list examples of noted attacks int he media and let people know that any dog can attack. Instead I chose to modify this page and let people know that any dog is capable of attacking and it has Nothing to do witht his particular breed, which is simply the truth it needs to be modified --Edited By a Professor of Life 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps smaller dogs can be as aggressive as Rottweilers, but they are incapable of killing children. As someone who was badly bitten by a Rottweiler "family pet" as a child (the owners never mistreated her and she knew me from previous visits), I can personally testify to their violent tendencies. To eliminate all mention of this risks neglecting this aspect of the breed's notorious behaviour. I don't think ignorance makes good owners of pets. It's up to the reader to decide with the evidence provided in this relatively well-balanced article. If I wanted to impose my opinion, it would probably read "shoot the damned things"!--Littlebig 09:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is by any means aimed at it. The section is way down in the article, and it clearly says that this is a media phenomenon and due to bad owners rather than bad dogs. It doesn't say much at all about the actual temperament of the dogs other than describing a friendly, clownish attitude. Given that, I think it's pretty fair, and possibly more than fair. It's undeniable that, whatever the truth of the matter, there is a widely shared perception that Rottweilers are more dangerous than, say, poodles, and that's all this section really talks about. If you have citations from reliable sources that have evidence on the dog's temperament, don't hesitate to add them. But please don't add more uncited material; this article has plenty already. Note that the the threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Thanks, William Pietri 05:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog3.pdf --Edited By a Professor of Life 22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're starting to look for references, but there were three issues with your edit. First, you reverted somebody else's wikilink. Section, that article says nothing about what dogs make loving companions. And third, the article says nothing at all about Rottweilers, and thus can't prove anything about their temperament. Perhaps you could find some research on Rottweilers? The article would be a good source for some of other breeds mentioned, though. Why don't you look at adding it on those articles? William Pietri 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that I would like to add is simply the fact that all dogs are capable of attacking. And yes, a small dog can kill a child. http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/2001/LA9212001pomeranian.pdf A pomeranian killed a 6-week old infant while the caretaker went to warm a bottle for just a few minutes. As stated before, this is not a discussion board so I won't go on about my 2 year old Rott who happens to be a big hit at a local school for mentally and physically disabled children (she's a therapy dog), but it would be greatly appreciated if before posts are made, research would be done. This article is reasonably fair and presents an accurate description of temperment.

[edit] Medium-large?

Isn't it safe to say that Rottweilers are large dogs? I mean, I realize that there are larger dogs, but still, I Rottweilers are rather large, and I think it's simply misleading to call them medium-large. --D. Webb 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting??

Since im new, i dont know how to do this, but it might be good to have the keywords [Rottie, Rotty, and Rott] as redirections to the main page...if that makes sense

x_C.H. 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok so i added one to the Rott disambiguation page, but the other ones can still be used. x_C.H. 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks for the help ;-) x_C.H. 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)