Talk:American Mastiff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance 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.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Preferred photos show the complete animal, head to tail. Additional photos should add information, such as a face-only shot or distinct coat color or texture variants. Please do not include restricted copyright or "fair use" images.


Contents

[edit] Health Issues

Just as an FYI - drooling is NOT a health concern!


[edit] A few alterations

Under the Panja American Mastiff it states that they can grow quite large, which isn't true according to the breed standard which I'll update, but feel free to correct if you know otherwise. I'm also contacting Flying W Farms to ask if they will donate a picture for the article. Chimericaldemise 02:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture offer

Dear user- I am a proud owner of an american mastiff and I have multiple digital picture of him, if you would like any picture I would happilly contribute--Goose359 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't use this site as a launching pad for attacks or bias

Mastiffowner: From your user name and continually postings, it is clear that you are the owner of another mastiff breed and have an anti-AM bias. Every single edit you have made to date has been done to reflect negativity against AMs -- not to share new information about the breed origins, or the breed traits that are relevant to people who come to this site to learn about AMs.

Please refrain, and focus your contributions on other topics.

from Mastiffowner: Actually my comments are all fact based and if someone directs me I will happily upload the pedigrees that demonstrate the dual registration of Mastiffs as AMs. Here is the direct quote that shows that the AKC will NEVER register such a mix: http://www.akc.org/reg/fss_details.cfm "The AKC only considers adding new breeds to the FSS® or its registry upon request. The breed must be recognized by an acceptable foreign or domestic registry.
The FSS® is not open to "rare" breeds that are a variation of an AKC-registrable breed or the result of a combination of two AKC-recognized breeds. This includes and is not limited to differences such as size (over and under), coat type, coat colors, and coat colors and/or types that are disqualifications from Conformation Events by AKC breed standards."
The fact of the matter is that the claims made by the AM camp are unfounded. There is no evidence of better health, health testing of foundation stock, identity of many foundation stock, or longer lifespan. That is what needs to stop being allowed. Stop making the claims and there will be no reason for people to point out that there is no supporting evidence. State the facts as they are with no speculation.
The article, as I read it, makes no claims for the new breed other than that it appears to drool less. (That doesn't appear to be disputed but it could still stand a citation, as do other assertions such as the breeds that were combined to create the AM, etc.) Otherwise it merely states that the AM was bred "in an attempt" to address shortcomings of other mastiffs. I reverted the edits by User:Mastiffowner as introducing an unnecessary and unwarranted element of contention into what appears otherwise as a pretty straightforward article.
Whether or not AKC will, or will ever, register a breed such as the American Mastiff is not abundantly clear from the citation above. A *clear* statement would be a statement along the lines of, "AKC will never register American Mastiffs". Perhaps the AKC's position is clear to dog breeders but to the lay reader, it is anything but. If that point is going to be made in this article, attached to that citation, it will have to be explained quite a bit more clearly, I think. (At which point it may be too long and detailed to be appropriately included.) A middle ground might be to cite to the AKC page and then add that it is possible that the breed will never be recognized.
Also, everyone, please sign your Talk page edits with four tildes. JohnInDC (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement ïn an attempt to address" insinuates the "fixing" of said problems. Factual statement would be add the fact that no evidence of success or failure is evident at this time. The statement from the FSS is perfectly clear. The AM is "a variation of an AKC-registrable breed or the result of a combination of two AKC-recognized breeds." I have clarified this with the AKC - but the statement stands on it's own.

"This line is relatively" This statement has nothing to do with the reason that it is not recognized by any reputable Kennel Clubs. In fact, FW has been doing this for over 20 years. By this point there should be no more mixing of other purebreeds into the AM. This dual registration and continued mixing as well as the lack of true history,lack of foundation stock documentation and it's own form and function are just some of the reasons the AM is not considered a breed.

And, finally, there is no evidence to support the claim of a 7/8 1/8 mix. Mastiffowner (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I came across this article and tried to clean it up a bit but it still needs some work to bring it in line with other articles on dog breeds. I also removed a speculative comment lacking any citations about the ability of the breed to be recognized by the AKC and other clubs, as well as a poorly written POV statement. I think there are criticisms that can be made of the American Mastiff as a "breed", but there is a line between fair, constructive criticisms that are made by experts and appropriately cited versus people simply posting their own POV in the article (see WP:POV ). croll (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Reorganized the article and tried to clean it up a bit and eliminate some of the redundancy. If I cut out too much, feel free to put it back in but lets try to keep the article organized. croll (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extenal Links?

Why do the External Links keep getting deleted? They are legitimate websites.

AMowner (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak to one site. The Continental Kennel Club was a run-of-the-mill commercial website - pertinent perhaps, but still just offering services (and ad space) for money. JohnInDC (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand that, but why can't we add links to message boards? All the other dog reference pages have them. The site I want to add is Americanmastifffamily.org. It is a valid website for information about the American Mastiff Breed, run by proud AM owners. The Moderater on the other site (AM.org) that was referenced before is an English Mastiff breeder that has a warning on her OWN website telling people to stay away from our breed. Hence why the other site should not be referenced here. Her user name on Wikipedia is Mastiffowner and if you go back and look at the history you can see where she posted negative things about the AM. AMowner (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure these Wiki people don't care about what a person says on another site. They have rules and regulations on this website and will follow them. Read through this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links and you will understand. No of this would have been an issue if 72.45.12.21 wouldn't have deleted am.orgJenny327 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do think they care because they already stopped mastiffowner from posting here. I know the rules and was abiding by them. We could take it a step further and point out all ther personal web page references on the EM page. Mastiffowner can thank you for that. AMowner (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read my message? I said ANOTHER site.Jenny327 (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please control the whining child??? Wow - you all really have issues and enjoy making things up (eenymeenymineymoe...so many of you have done this in the past it's hard to figure out which genius you are...). Nobody has STOPPED me from posting anywhere! HERE I AM! I just figured you all really weren't my time anymore. But, you continue to bring me up...once again your logic is quite flawed!

PS - the fact that the AKC will never register the AM is NOT Speculative...it is FACT! As are statements regarding dual registering purebred Mastiffs as AMs. The fact that I own Mastiffs has nothing to do with me being a moderator. I don't use the board to push Mastiffs. I simply state the truth/facts and documented back-up. Heck - I never even moderated any of the ridiculous statements people made about me...I simply pointed out the errors. Now...leave me the out of your conversations as I have left you alone...I really have been trying to ignore the emails I get about your site...but if I must address the things I've read...I will...

Please keep WP:Civil in mind as you post.
Also, I restored the link to the website refernced above, which didn't need to be deleted from the talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Masitffowner - there is nothing for you to address on the other site. It is just a site for people who love their AM's to talk safely. Nothing is being said about you or anyone else. Move along... AMowner (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Par for the course - always ignore the false statements you make...right AMowner - you are all more and more like your founder every day? More like a safe place from reality and facts Mastiffowner (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Please temper your tone. I have already recommended WP:Civil; Wikipedia:No personal attacks supplies additional admonitions. Please have a look at it. JohnInDC (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)