Talk:Rottweiler

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.
??? 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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 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.)

Nobody calls Rottweilers Rocs or Rochesters, so I deleted those dumb nicknames. ANyone who does is retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it POV to describe rottweilers as big, cuddly, friendly half-bears? I think my rottie might be half-bear because he has shaggy fur.

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

[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.

Actually there have been many instances of war dogs in this form - see war_dog#attack_dogs, and perhaps check next time before you scornfully post, as this is perfectly plausible. Ecth (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What a crock! The article war_dog#attack_dogs specifically states rottweiler-type dogs. Since the breed didn't even exist back then and there is no clear classification for a 'rottweiler-type' dog, this kind of statement does not belong in any decent online encyclopedia. It deserves to be rebuked scornfully! It sounds like you wish to push a negative stereotype about the breed. You must be sick of all the lazy Mexicans? Tight-fisted Jews? Chinese people beating you in math competitions?! I'm being sarcastic BTW, just in case it has gone over your pointy head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.25.131 (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, but not Rottweilers

DOGS AND NATIONAL DEFENSE Anna M. Waller 1958 Department of the Army Office of the Quartermaster General Study on the history of War Dog training and utilization during and after World War II. (Page 8)

In 1942 and 1943, when practically all of the dogs were trained to perform the comparatively simple tasks involved in sentry duty more than thirty breeds of both sexes were considered suitable for military service. Experience revealed, however, that even for sentry duty some breeds were unsatisfactory. Among these were Great Danes, whose large size made them difficult to train, and hunting breeds in general because they were too easily diverted by animal scents. By the fail of 1944 the number of preferred breeds had been reduced to seven, German Shepherds, Belgian sheep dogs,, Doberman-Pinschers, farm collies, Siberian huskies, Malamutes and Eskimo dogs. Crosses of these breeds also were acceptable.

According the the The United States War Dogs Association, Inc. a nonprofit organization of former and current US Military Dog Handlers and others:

Once knowledge and experience was gained the dogs of choice became the German Shepherd Dog and the Doberman. Due to the nature of work to be accomplished the Labrador eventually replaced the Doberman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.80.50 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rottweiler-caused deaths

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

The following was taken from the UK kennel Club Website, and i feel gives a fair description of a well treated Rottie;

Temperament

Good natured, not nervous, aggressive or vicious; courageous, biddable, with natural guarding instincts.

Characteristics

Appearance displays boldness and courage. Self-assured and fearless. Calm gaze should indicate good humour.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/59

(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)

I agree. This article does seem a little biased, but I cannot think how to change it without expressing objective opinion on the other side. Ecth (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2007 (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)
Rottweilers can make loving pets, as mentioned in the main article. Any large dog could attack if poorly trained. Alsations also seem to be labeled dangerous, which isn't allways true, i know several people who own alsations on my housing estate, and they're only a danger to intruders. Sticking an untrained Rottwieler into your back garden to scare of theives is a bad idea, one case in the town Washington, Tyne and Wear U.K. near to where i live, the rottwieler was so good natured, he allowed himself to be led away by a theif. The truth is, most dogs will attack if baited, but the dogs i notice are the most agressive is small dogs, such as Terriers and Jack Russels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.51.27 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (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. 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 )
Best Regards Lutfiye Oztel

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.



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.

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)

No, it is not safe to say that Rottweilers are large dogs, as a BREED. Poorly bred Rottweilers may be large, but if you do a check on the standard of the Rottweiler, you will find that it is a medium breed. There are many breeds larger than the Rottweiler. --T.R. Young 65.127.126.130 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that it is an medium to large breed. The rottweiler is a very compact dog for it strength. The average Rottweiler, by U.S. standards are about 85-90 lbs. College Watch (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (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)

[edit] Roman History

This is a little fantastic. Is there a Latin source? Pliny the Elder had a tale of dogs carrying carts of treasure, but this was in Asia Minor. The claim that the Rottweiler is one of the ancient dog breeds needs to be substantiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legis Nuntius (talk • contribs) 04:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Misleading

I think it's pretty damn misleading to say things like "never leave your child alone with ANY animal" after talking about Rotweiler's killing children. I've NEVER heard about a golden retriever, even the most abused, beat up mistreated golden retriever, killing babies in their sleep. Have you? Let's be honest. It's not EVERY animal that you need to be genuinely worried about. 74.115.188.212 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Jordan

Ahem: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.55.81 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah? then leave your baby with as many dogs as you can. Darwin will do his work.

All dogs are created with the potential to harm, but some have more potential than others. <-- shameless Animal Farm ripoff. LochNessDonkey 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

heh, that's a good quote. "You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed. And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight, You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking."-- Pink Floyd, "Dogs" Legis Nuntius 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


What is misleading is the overwhelming number of Rottweiler attacks (or any dog attack, for that matter) that do not give proper attention to the factors involved in the attack. There are usually 3 main factors involved in a dog attack, and minor factors can be pulled from them. They are the following:

1.) Poor Breeding - The mating of dogs that have poor bloodlines and/or physical and/or mental ailments that can be passed on to a new generation of the breed.

2.) Being tied out - Tieing a dog out CAN result in the dog becoming aggressive due to it's natural want to be a part of a 'pack'.

3.) Lack of training and/or socialization - Dogs such as Rottweilers that are strong physically as well as mentally that are not properly trained will 'train' themselves. Left unchecked, their strength can be lethal. When properly trained and socialized, any dog can learn to limit it's strength during play or trial periods.

If a responsible owner purchases a dog of reputable breeding and proceeds to train and socialize the dog and make it a part of the family, the potential for an attack plummets. The responsible owner will also not allow any dog to remain unsupervised with young children. The responsible owner will provide their dog with a proper kennel, if not permitted to live indoors with the family unit.

Poor breeding, in and of itself, is a major contributor to dog attacks. Popular breeds like the Rottweiler are being bred by Back Yard Breeders (BYBs) and puppy mills simply so that someone can turn a quick profit. These dogs aren't properly health certified, nor do they have quality lineage to help pass on good traits. They are typically physically deficient with poor hearts and eyes, they pass on dysplaisa and other joint defects, and can be mentally unstable due to inbreeding. A Code of Ethics (COE) breeder will not allow the above mentioned poor breeding to happen. Their prices are typically higer than a BYB or a puppy mill, but a quality dog is the end result. Also, a COE breeder would never allow one of their pups to go to a home where the pup would not be trained or socialized properly, and a contract is typically written so that if there is any reason that the buyer can not continue to care for the dog, it will be returned to the breeder. A reputable breeder's pups should NEVER end up in a shelter or pound.

There is NO SUCH THING as a dangerous breed, only dangerous individual dogs. Using the logic of dangerous breeds, the human race should not be allowed to exist. --T.R. Young 65.127.126.130 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC


'I think it's pretty damn misleading to say things like "never leave your child alone with ANY animal" after talking about Rotweiler's killing children. I've NEVER heard about a golden retriever, even the most abused, beat up mistreated golden retriever, killing babies in their sleep. Have you? Let's be honest. It's not EVERY animal that you need to be genuinely worried about. '


NO dog should EVER be left alone with a child. Golden Retriever or not. I was attacked by a golden once. Breed plays no role. With the right circumstances, ANY dog regardless of breed could attack a baby or child. Go ahead and leave a dog alone with your kid. See how that turns out.... 76.177.56.8 00:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, with the sratement No animal should be left alone with a child, because 1: a fish in a tank can do no harm without help from an irresponsible child.I also think that some dogs can be allowed wwith children I mean come on, a chiuaua with a 5 year old,the 5 year old owns the chiuaua, WHAT CAN GO WRONG even if the dog were to become evil, It is like somthing this size 1 vs somthing this size 1Superscript text and then one can say the chiuaua may get the boys neck, but then you can say being in a house is dangerous because it could fall down, I mean Jeez, i left a german shepherd with kids, they loved him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.241.222 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


To add my two bits - anyone remember the story about the woman who got mauled by her pet, needed a face transplant? The dog was a Labrador, by far the epitome of gentleness in the doggie world, if there is such a thing... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/03/health.france). Personal experience - while I was growing up, our pet lab bit my younger sister every single time she was left alone with her. Conversely, my Rottweiler happily made friends with 2 small children yesterday, much more readily than any of my labs ever did.

A dog is still an animal, whatever the breed. Every animal, humans included, will respond with aggression if the situation demands it of them - when they feel threatened, intimidated or pushed beyond a reasonable limit. As a 'responsible' owner, whatever the breed, the owner inculcates a sense of security which kinda pushes these limits for the animal. It is unfair to focus on a few instances when the dog responded with aggression without first trying to establish the reasons for the aggression - was the dog threatened, was he trained to respond with aggression in some situations, was aggression an acceptable response from the dog up to that point etc..

Children tend to forget that unlike their parents, some people don't accept unreasonable behavior from them. So is it unreasonable to say that a dog, regardless of the breed, may respond with some aggression if a child unknowingly hurts her? I can confidently say that no matter what the breed, every dog has the potential to act unpredictably / with violence. Pretty much the same as humans... Cahira (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Docking comment

I just wanted to add my 2 bits (I have edited as well) that docking is not illegal in "The European Union" - rather there was an EU treaty that called for its banning, but many countries did not sign up to it.

Bassclef 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's so cruel to dock animals - how would you like it if someone cut off YOUR genitalia? I also wonder if the population of docked animals is in threat, how do they reproduce??
First, whether you think it is cruel or not is not the issue here, this is an encyclopedia, not a porn site for animal rights. Second, my, or any other animal's sex organs, has nothing to do with whether or not we remove the tails or ears from certain dogs. Third, docking has nothing to do with reproduction, as it is the removal of most of the tail or ears, and dogs don't use their tails or ears for sex. Fourth, I suspect that you are confusing docking with neutering. If this is the case, I would encourage you to read the article on neutering, as it holds a wealth of information as to the advantages of neutering. A simple Google search on the topic, or perusing the SPCA web site will provide similar information. Fifth, I'm pretty certain that animals commonly neutered are in no danger of vanishing due to lack of ability to reproduce. I reach this conclusion largely based upon the fact that on of the most common motivations for animal sterilization is the desire to reduce the ridiculous numbers of unwanted animals that come as a result of undesired accidental impregnation of animals, particularly cats. Sixth, please sign your posts. NihilisticMystic 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] docking...

Although the origins of docking or Rottweilers is mentioned in the article, it should stand that they were mostly docked in order to avio injuries when guarding herds from wolves.... Mind you i can't provide evidnece for this, but it makes sense.... yeah man!

[edit] listings of dog attacks?

Most people who get bit by Rottweilers are assholes that deserved it anyways.

I edited out two of the three listings of dog attacks in the press. While one example can serve as a cautionary warning, placing three in a row makes it look welcoming for everyone to put their anecdotal story or local television dog attack on the page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it seemed outside of it's scope to include these listings.

Jlmerrell 01:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Most people who get bit by Rottweilers are assholes that deserved it anyways. It would be wise to restrain from using this kind of language. It's insulting, it's not true, and as people recognize it as such, it won't help you with this or any other cause. In addition people will get the idea, that perhaps you are an example of the type, who can't control their dogs.
In any case, I was similarly amazed to see such a listing. Do we see a hysterical death count elsewhere in Wikipedia? Listings of Toyota crash kills in Toyota article? Listings of U.S. Army kills in Iraq in Iraq article? Listings of knife attacks in Knife article? If such a listing remains here some people might be tempted to start making such listings. And where would Wikipedia be then? --Ukas 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I completly agree so what there have been attacks does not mean that we should list them and how does what he said give that type of impression, i thought it was a fair opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.241.222 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rottweiler heroes

I added a new part "Rottweiler heroes" with a true story how Rottweiler Aku was selected to be a police of the year in Finland. I'm sure there will be more examples. --Ukas 23:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised to see you add such a section despite your objections to the Rottweiler attacks section. I don't think either belongs in this article. - Che Nuevara 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i've done my best to repair the grammar of this section...however i still think it should be deleted190.58.5.168 00:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A section on dog heroes? That's patent nonsense. Putting aside the fact that it's obviously created with the point of counteracting the attacks section, it's clearly not neutral. VanTucky Talk 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types

Why aren't the types listed? I know there are at least 2: German and American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.254.78 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should list them? You seem to know a little on the subject Ecth (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As with many breeds (e.g., Border Collies, German Shepherds pop to mind) there might or might not be clearly defined, distinct types. With Border Collies in the U.S., for example, one can point to Border Collies that are successful in the AKC breed ring versus Border Collies registered with one of the herding associations rather than with the AKC, and note that breeders for the former tend to focus on the AKC breed standard for appearance, whereas the latter breeders tend to focus on herding skills, resulting in dogs in the latter category that are less likely to conform to the AKC standard and are more likely to demonstrate strong herding instinct. In German Shepherds, it's generally accepted that European Shepherds' rear legs and hips do not have the extremely enlongated appearance that the American ones have, resulting in fewer hip problems in the European breeds, but it's hard to put an exact label on the types (because there are exceptions in both cases). If you can clearly define and describe differences among various groups and attribute the differences to a well-documented reason, by all means, talk about it. Elf | Talk 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use in concentration camps

Shouldn't the breeds use / exploitation by the nazis in the concentration camps be mentioned under the history heading --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any reason why this should be mentioned any more than their use by any other police or military organization. Any reason why this should stand out, other than the fact that the people involved were nazis? Elf | Talk 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Let's face it

These are dangerous animals and their owners should get a grip. They blame the attacks on the poor education given to these beasts by their owners, but I've never heard of any other breed behaving in such way. There are thousands of reports on the aggressiveness of Rotweillers. This breed should be extinguished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.74.7 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for conversations about opinions like these. It's an encyclopedia, which means that it attempts to portray facts from a neutral point of view. I might agree that this article isn't entirely NPOV at the moment. But the preceding anonymous user's statements are all opinion. If, for example, the user could quote a reliable source that, for example, 10% of all dog attacks in the U.S. in the 1990s were by Rottweilers, that would be a fact, although incomplete. Additional info would be needed to show whether they were more or less likely than average to attack a person--for example, if Rottweilers also made up 10% of the population of dogs in the U.S, it would not show that they are more vicious than other dogs; it would show only that they act like average dogs in proportion to the number of their breed that exists. Elf | Talk 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


After reading the "these are dangerous animals" comment, I created a Wikipedia account just to respond to this irresponsible comment, even though I am sure the writer felt it was justified. Though I was very familiar with dogs from breeding German Shepperds, and have had other pets including a Border Collie and Bull Mastiff, I too was uncertain about the first two Rottweilers I met. I quickly found these two full grown dogs to be passive and docile, yet curious and intelligent. Little did I know that 5 short years later, I would have a different 4 year old female Rottie living in my home when putting up a friend in school. Soon after, I brought-up a baby Rottweiler to the age of 2 years, who sadly left with his owner after school was over. In one real life example, several young children played in my street, when a neighbor's dog (breed uncertain) walked towards one of the playing children. The 4 year old female Rottie, who was outside in my front yard with me, calmly but clearly walked between the child and the other dog, occasionally looking at the other dog. Dog trainers know this is a non-aggressive but protective sign. No barking or growling -- just an instinct to protect this human child she had never met before, and in the exact same way I have seen mothers do. At a different time, but in similar fashion, I was rough-housing with the two Rottweilers in my living room. As I lay on my back, the younger and more rambunctious puppy pretended to nip at my ear as puppies do. Again, the 4 year old female calmly walked over, lay down, and placed her snout on my face, apparently worried that the puppy may inadvertently nip at my face. And again, no barking, growling, or aggression. I could continue with many stories than you would care to read, but all of them involve Rottweiler kindness to complete strangers. It is true that both of 'my' Rottweilers were socialized, had the use of a dog door, were fed well (perhaps too well) and were treated with dignity. A quick drive through some Phoenix, AZ neighborhoods where I live reveal that so many dogs are treated the opposite -- I'm left to wonder why some even have pets, and it is little wonder why some dogs behave badly after being subject to such miserable lives. But the thought of banishing a breed outright, such as the Denver, CO breed-specific dog law, and the concentration-camp way it is implemented, literally made me ill and unable to eat for a week. While the intention of such bans is to do good, the thought of such arbitrary laws creating even the remote possibility of losing my sentient, selfless, and altruistic companions to unfounded fears is savage. I enjoy the Wikepedia discussion page, and do not mind differing "opinions", but the unsubstantiated dribble that most internet reviews, blogs and comments offer have no place in this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yattaboy (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many breeders in Asia which are enlarging the rottweiler market now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohkinghung (talk • contribs) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that the originator of this section was trolling, so I wouldn't take it too seriously. That said, while I have met two Rotties that were aggressive and probably dangerous, they were exceptions to the rule. Every other member of the breed I've got to spend time with has been an intelligent, protective, and usually gentle animal. CaptainVlad (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I strongly disagree with the first post n completely agree with the rest. I've had a number of dogs over the years, Labradors, Doberman, Apsos, Cocker Spaniels - lets just say I'm a big time dog lover. Till a few months back, I was a fan of the Labrador, their behavior, intelligence, willing ness to please etc. My companion of the last 14 years, a beautiful black lab, really raised the bar for me. I recently acquired a rotti. I can honestly say that in terms of intelligence, train-ability, affection (even towards strangers) and behavior, my new friends meets and exceeds all my previous experiences. I never expected my Rottweiler pup would be running out to lick n play with every person she meets!

I'm sure there are ferocious Rottis. Just like there are ferocious everything else - including humans!

Cahira (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

These tales of personal experience fall under WP:OR. While they are probably true, they should not influence the content of the article since that should rely on reliable references, not personal experience. Bob98133 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There must be something in journals of animal psychology or vet ones. But this article and those on pit bulls, Dobies etc. are full of references to partisan or sensationalist sources. And the edits swing between those which think these are either the sweetest of animals or will kill you as soon as they smell you. Perhaps a task force can be set up to look at all this sort of article.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "the Rottweiler is the number two breed of dog named in fatal human attacks from 1979 to 1998 " - Unlikely to be a Chihuahua

Can anyone else see my point? I love large working dogs the Rottweiler being one of them. The quote just struck me as being rather amusing....

Secretsmiler (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)secretsmiler

Hi. Sorry, no I don't see your point. What do Chihuahuas have to do with Rottweilers? Are you saying that because some dog breeds have never fatally attacked humans that it is unfair to say that Rotteilers have? Obviously, to fatally attack a human a dog has to be larger and/or more powerful than the human. Please explain. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

I'm new to all of this but I can see from almost every coment above that there really hasn't been any thought gone into either side of the debate I probably had a bettr idea of what the truth really is before I could walk both sides are as bad as each other (Al)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.106.45 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)