Talk:Bandog/Archive 1

Foreign language in Pit Dog section

Can someone translate it and determine what it's doing there and if it is worth keeping the translated text in the article? --Dihard 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Swinford

I am not sure what is the proper format for the discussion page, I am just inserting this as I sit fit and I apologize if that is the wrong way.

Considering the fact that no one but you refers to Bandog as Swinford anything. Unless directly referring to the bloodline that you have produced, leads me to believe that you putting it under alternative or common names is simply advertisement. Similarly, other people who breed Bandogs can start putting their bloodlines in there, I hope you see the issue with that. To prove this point you can simply do a basic Google search:

1.Swinford, no results related to dogs show up at all

2.Swinford K9, returns results posted on your website, your forum, or posts that you have made elsewhere

3.Swinford Bandog, returns mentions on various message boards referring to your bloodline specifically while discussing the general term Bandog

As I have pointed out in my original discussion post, and what is clearly stated in the first few lines of the article, the term Bandog has originated in Middle England around 1250. Besides numerous books in which Bandogs are described hundreds of years before the establishment of the United States you keep putting United States as the country of origin. Very convenient for a person taking the credit for creating the modern Bandog, plastering his name allover the article, and then linking to his page.

You have not corrected the history of modern Bandog, you have specifically wrote about your kennels bloodline history, and even better you have used your own page that you wrote as a reference. If you want to have a section dedicated to the job Swinford has done, I would be happy to have that but do note that other peoples opinions will also be reflected, including Joe Lucero.

Furthermore the concept behind a Bandog has been with us since the day we have started using dogs for guard work. That concept of mixing Mastiff with another breed to produce certain quality has never left us, we have clear modern examples of that with a Bullmastiff. Besides the fact that before Swinford, and after Swinford, a number of people have been mixing fighting dogs with the Mastiff all around the world to accomplish the same. You are simply taking the credit while you are simply just another kennel.

For the time being, I am once again changing the origin and removing Swinford from alternative names. I am not agreeing with the actions of the person that removed all references to Swinford under the modern breed description, even though I feel the information stated there only addresses your kennel, that is something I wanted to discuss with you first as I have mentioned in the original discussion topic. Vitaliy G

Please be sure that content (especially the content at the heart of the dispute) follows the guidelines set forward at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and please cite your sources for fact claims. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I really can not come up with anything better than Google to display that the name Swinford is not used as there are simply no resources that will say such name is not used. Google shows that no one uses the name but the person that is disputing this claim. Basic source for the origin as far as the date and location, Dictionary would be the easiest example http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bandog Some of the other historical references already have citations right in the article. The claim that Bullmastiff is a mix of a Mastiff with a Bulldog is addressed on its Wikipedia page. - Vitaliy G 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Referrences of Swinfords work

To say that no other resources besides the internet, google, or my website used the Swinford name for his dogs simply isn't true. I am not wishing to be offensive here, but I have studied Swinford's work extensively. It is published. If you haven't found published referrences than you haven't done much reseach off the internet about Bandogs. Information that referrences Swinford's work and his dogs as "Swinford Bandogs" is out there and it is published. The Swinford Bandog page of my website clearly outlined such referrences in a few different publications...which you could have validated if you so chose to do so (to seek and validate accurate information on the topic)...the Sporting Dog Journal by Jack Kelly, and also a few of the books by Carl Semencic (World of Fighting Dogs and Gladiator Dogs) that document the Swinford Bandog either by name or by referring to Swinford's work in its original state. Carl and I have spoken on several occations...and on his website you will see him wearing one of our T-shirts while fishing (where he caught a gator) if you need to validate my contact with him (so you don't have to take my word for it). I can provide another photo of this same setting that is not on his website if need be. I have researched Swinford's work extensively and established contacts with a few of Swinford's original partners...some that were involved in some of Swinford's original breedings and also including the lady that took many of the photos of Bantu when he was a pup with his EM mother Octavia...and other Swinford dogs.

This is documented outside of the internet...and these referrences are how we established contact with those who were involved with Swinford's work. I first became aware of Swinford work around 1990 or 1991...and, going through various referrences, it took me 10 years and even longer to find SOME of the people that were involved in the original Swinford Bandog project. I know of no one else that has done this research or made so many contacts with those that were close to Swinford during his time of breeding his bandogs. Therefore, my willingness to share this information should be welcomed rather than met with conflict.

Joe Lucero is another modern breeder of bandogs that has been published and although his type of bandog isn't my own personal preferrence...I think his work should also be referrenced regardless of my preferrences. The same should be said for Swinford's work as it has been published more often, longer ago, influenced a number of people and breeders around the world, and is most definately referred to more often. SSDA 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The work that Swinford has done is really not in question, he deserves to be mentioned. You are exaggerating the impact he had on the modern Bandog, and putting him as a central figure in Bandog world, that is not the case. That is not really the issue, the issue is that you are using Wikipedia to advertise a website on which you sell dogs. Also, incorrect information is being supplied to make the Swinford name sound as a bigger influence (such as it being the common name, and origin of the Bandog being the United States). As I have said before, he is yet another breeder. - 24.184.174.85 04:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vitaliy G

I have not altered the history information of the early bandog. I only corrected the modern breed history information. Also, all information posted by me in the modern bandog section can be verified. A referrence of such material can be viewed on the "Swinford Bandog" page...and this information is relative to the modern breed. Instead of making false accusations, why not point out SPECIFIC issues that you would like to address so a proper resolution can be found?

Referrences to my comments can be validated both by the July-August issue of 1972 Sporting Dog Journal as well as another book by Jack Kelly, and also by a few of Carl Semencic's books. Swinford referred to his lines of dogs as "Swinford Bandogs" and his breeding were largely responsbible for the EM and APBT being primary components in the lines of dogs currently being developed as "Swinfords." He also influenced several bandog breeders throughout the world. SSDA (talk • contribs)

Issues

So, here we can finally address the issues regarding this article. I should make it very clear that I know nothing about dogs or the information in this article. I'm just eager to resolve this dispute.

To start, I'd like the newer users involved to read these guidelines and policies about what things should be included in Wikipedia articles. I've placed them in the order I think you should consider them:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:External links
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Spam

I am especially concerned about User:SSDA inserting a link in the article to a commercial web site. Is this your business? If that is the case, it is almost certainly not acceptable to add that link.

Information about the modern history of the breed skirts the edge of original research, if the only source is the commercial web site of the editor inserting the information. We really need independent confirmation on this information, especially something published in a recognized journal for the subject.

Please discuss the issues here and hopefully we'll find some resolution to make everyone happy. kmccoy (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The SSDA is not a "business" nor is it a commercial organization. It is a club association and there are no fees for registering any dogs except to cover printing and shipping costs, and it does not even do that. It most certainly is not a business or a money making organization. It is an organization that is interested in recreating and maintaining the work as it was originally done by Swinford. Thank you for asking and for giving me the opertunity to clarify this in black and white. Again, I make my living as a professional in education. SSDA(talk)

Mr Robinson, the SSDA itself may not be a business but you are in the business of breeding dogs. If this was only about Swinford's work you would not have put your name at the forefront, falsely claimed Swinford was responsible for the modern bandog, mentioned the still immature SSDA, put up your website or mentioned yourself all without any credible sources you don't have a vested interest in. That all smacks of self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama99 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Original referrences

First, I take it you didn't look at the link and see further referrences? Below I described Swinford's work being published both in the Sporting Dog Journals (by Jack Kelly) and in a few books (by Semencic). I make a living in education (as a teacher), my website is largely educational about the breed history. Yes, on that sight one can find links to my dog kennel, but the matter is simply an issue of putting breed history up for others to obtain and my kennel website is simply a host of said information. The dogs are a hobby that I have dedicated much of my life to, which is why I obtained 2 degrees in Animal Sciences. Swinford's work is published to some limited degree in two issues of the Sporting Dog Journal and also in a book by Jack Kelly. It is also published to some degee in Carl Semencic's books. In addition, we have been able to contact many of the people Swinford worked with...including people that actually took the original photos of Swinford's original breeding program (some friends, some dog people that were involved in his work, and a lady vet friend that was very familiar with his Bandog project). The Chimera Kennels website only is our host for the Swinford Bandog history information page....which includes many referrences and original Swinford photos that are no where else (legally that is) on the internet. User:SSDA 71.195.158.57 23:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Kmccoy, I will gladly work to find some sort of common ground with the group listing opposing view, but the keep removing the modern breed desciption and truth about what is going on with these dogs today. There is a great deal of truth that can be documented and should be reported. User:SSDA/SSDA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.158.57 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet instead of listing your issues, you just reverted back. Did you read the information I posted above, especially about conflict of interest? kmccoy (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just now learning how to use "Wikipedia" and didn't see this disucssion page until it was brought to my attention. If you go back and look at the "Bandog" page that predates my edits, you will see the information that I added maintained a great deal of the original information...and that the Swinford information was described as seperately as possible in order to prevent any dispute; however, it is unquestionable that Swinford's work (which included publication of his dogs) was extremely responsible for what has occurred in the Bandog community today...so I felt this information should be listed for the sake of documenting an accurate modern description of what is occurring today and in recent history. Then the "disputing party" undid my editorial comments without compromise. Well, I simply reactivated them. So...on that note, one should be able to conclude that my comments included their information (for both sides of the story) while their information did not. So, I hope by pointing this out you are able to confirm that originally, it wasn't me that simply "reverted it back." I am not illustrating this here in order to be petty about such issues, but do desire you to understand I am willing to work or compromise with those that are willing to return the favor. However, deleting my comments was not meeting me half way. I do regret that you have to be involved for such matters to reach mutual ground, but also I appreciate your willingness to do so when the need arrises. Thanks. SSDA 71.195.158.57 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Alright. I despise doing this, but I've protected the page. People, you need to come to this page and work out a resolution to the disagreement. The back and forth reverting solves nothing. This includes SSDA, vitaliy, and any users who haven't logged in. Discuss it here, because when the page is unprotected in a day or two, if the blind reverts continue, I'll start blocking the people who do them. So, please, talk this over. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The SSDA is using Wikipedia for self promotion. There are no experienced bandoggers who concur with his version of history regardless of Swinford's work. He's claimed in the past Swinford was influential worldwide yet has come up empty on proof. When asked to substantiate anything he never has.

It would be better for the dog community to have no entry on bandogs if it means letting the SSDA edit the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.116.43 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Those comments sound as if you wish to have a one sided report. Just which claim is it you would like for me to substantiate? Perhaps if we researched your IP in the history of the Bandog info we would see editorial comments "undone." Just who does IP 71.84.116.43 match or point to? Frankly, it is time to let by-gones be by-gones and for the sake of the breed work together to report the true history of the breed as well as its modern forms, types, and programs. SSDA

No but it would be better if you were not allowed to edit the entry based on what you've put in in the past and how you've been trying to rewrite history and use Wikipedia for promoting your business. The SSDA is still a fledgling organization thats not done anything of note to date in the bandog world. For this to be an honest history of Swinford there has to be input from more than those with a vested interest in the name. Thats what you are trying to avoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.116.43 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

71.84.116.43,

First, I don't know who I am speaking to and would prefer to direct a person by name rather than a number. Next, apparently you are not familiar with the SSDA or its practices, but only hearsay or fearful presumptions. It isn't a money making organization. No where will you see any "registration fees" to register dogs in the SSDA. It's sole interest in registering dogs is for the purpose of tracking pedigrees of working class dogs as accepted by the SSDA; however, all that IMO is a moot point...as the point here is not the SSDA or our dogs, but Swinford's work...which has been published and should be sited.SSDA

Mr. Robinson, it has been clear from the outset that your intention was to promote yourself and your breeding program rather than the dubious contributions of Swinford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama99 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After all...

If third party documented referrences can be provided which validate Swinford's work in publication...wouldn't you agree that such information should be mentioned on Wikipedia? I can provide such documentation if needed. Also, I can also provide documentation of the existence of the Swinford Sporting Dog Association as well as providing documentation that I have established contact with several of Swinford's original partners in his Bandog project which was published and largely influencial to many other projects (which can also be documented via publication). SSDA 71.195.158.57 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our policies regarding reliable sources, citations, original research, and conflicts of interest? kmccoy (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for I have not. I just now went to view it and am pleased to see 3 tier requirements. I listed all 3 levels of the 3 tiers...the information, the author, and the source (books and journals by name). If you need me to go into more detail, I will gladly do so...as I am most definately willing to work with others in order to provide the most accurate information and not just a one sided view. SSDA71.195.158.57 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to go back and re-read those pages I mentioned above. You have shown no indication that you understand the policies involved. Especially the policies regarding conflicts of interest. Am I correct in saying that you represent an organization which has a commercial interest in this topic? I am concerned that you are using Wikipedia to promote your own interests. That is where the information at WP:COI comes into play. If you have a commercial interest in this matter, and your edits to Wikipedia are being influenced by that interest, you need to restrict your edits to the talk pages of articles rather than editing the article itself. I have asked multiple times for you to review these policies, and up until this point you had not, and even now it seems that you just glanced over them. I do not want to have to block anyone from editing, but editing without at least a basic understanding of the goals and policies of this project is not constructive. This applies to all the editors here, but I am directing it especially at SSDA, who seems to be the one with the conflict of interest. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently saw the WP-COI page and information, and as you requested I will be sure to take the time to read those pages more carefully before I make any future editing comments on wikipedia and apologize for note being more familiar with these pages or policies before making my previous edits. I am simply learning about wikipedia and how to use this forum now (as you can see I am just now learning how to even sign my comments even). To address your question about commercialism and the SSDA, it should be noted that the Swinford Sporting Dog Association (SSDA) isn't a money making organization. I appreicate your concern about preventing commercialism on wikipedia...and agree with it. No where will you see any "registration fees" to register dogs in the SSDA...even if you look on the registration forms themselves. I, the founder of the SSDA, make my living as a teacher...not registering dogs. So, on that note the SSDA is not a "commercial" organization. The SSDA's sole interest in registering dogs is for the purpose of tracking pedigrees of working class dogs as accepted by the SSDA in order to HELP (just as this site could) to provide information about the dogs used in the program...neither I nor the SSDA gets paid to register dogs in the SSDA. It is a labor of love...and interest to maintain accurate records. All this said, I honestly believe the conflict some are creating here should be easily rectified by simply viewing what information about these dogs has been published and what views are only opinions...as the point is Swinford's work...which has been published and should be sited...well, in my opinion it should be, but you are the one who will have to decide. I appreciate your willingness to moderate this forum and hope you make the right decision as it pertains to education on the topic at hand.SSDA71.195.158.57 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearance

While discussing the matter with someone else, I also plan on taking out the _whole_ appearance section from the article. Simply because a Bandog is not a set breed, and even as mentioned in the article, there are a number of variations depending on which breeds of dogs are being mixed (NeoMastiff x Pit Bull or Bull Terrier x Dogue de Bordeux would produce completely different dogs, as an example). All produce different sizes, colors, bone structure, coat, temperament, etc. Instead, the section will be replaced further discussing the foundation breedings and pointing out why appearance is unrelated. I would love to hear your input on the matter.

Vitaliy G 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree...which is why I included such information describing the various bandog types in my original editing.

SSDA (talk

References to Swinford's work as cited by the SSDA are incomplete and subjective

The references you are being asked for do not support many your claims about Swinford's work or that you are a leading bandog breeder. In fact, you are NOT a leading bandog breeder. Not all who knew of Swinford's work would exalt it to the point you did either.

Its time to stop talking around the issue like you keep doing and put up hard sources. Carl Semenic's books are not regarded as a good reference by experienced dogmen and that has to be acknowledged. Experienced bandoggers also say Swinford was not as accomplished as you've claimed.

Basically you're trying to use Wikipedia to promote your business of selling dogs and that is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.116.43 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that you are more interested in making accusations than getting to an accurate history of the breed. I didn't major in Animal Sciences so I could post something on a website. I did it because I was interested in the research. So...Again, I would say you are entitled to your opinion, but I have to ask a simple question. Can you provide documented and published referrences that support your view? I can provide documented PUBLISHED referrences for my views. My dogs are not the issue here. SSDA71.195.158.57 00:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the continued self promotion and attempts at deflection and put something solid up. All you have is a magazine article that Jack Kelly reportedly used as filler pages (that has to be mentioned) and some books written by a man experienced dogmen discount as a good source of anything except some nice pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.116.43 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when is a "filler topic" the cover story of a journal? Since when is a filler topic used published not just in one issue, but two issues? In the July-August 1972 issue of the Sporting Dog Journal, Jack Kelly wrote up a brief story about Swinfords dogs, which was the "cover story" of that issue. Some 30+ years later, Kelly again wrote a brief article of Swinford's work in a book. In both cases, Jack Kelly acknowledges the use of the English Mastiff being bred to game APBT dogs. In his book, Mr. Kelly states, "John was intent on establishing his very own breed of dog by crossing his English Mastiff to an American Pit Bull Terrier." In the 1972 July-August issue of the SDJ, Mr. Kelly gives referrence to the English Mastiff, the APBT, and also refers to some of the other foundation breeds used. It is in this journal that Mr. Kelly states, "John's ideas of breeding these dogs was to try and take the desirable qualities of each breed and through selective breeding to produce an all-purpose guard dog that was a game fighting dog." Mr. Kelly also gave reference to Swinford to the fact that even though Swinford himself did not keep pit dogs, he did love all dogs. He further described Swinford as a person who was always willing to offer his services to do whatever he could as a veterinarian for various dogs and dog clubs. He also stated that Swinford's dogs were outstanding guard dogs.

As far as Semencic's book, your view is a matter of opinion. His referrences to Swinford's work in his book The World of Fighting Dogs and also in Gladiator Dogs influenced many bandog programs and his reports on Swinford's work has been sited by more bandog breeders than any other modern bandog project...regardless of if you like the book or information. It isn't a matter of my opinion or your opinion. It is a matter of fact and historical information. You can't realistically deny this fact.SSDA71.195.158.57 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bandog RFC

A dispute involving some information about the modern history and breeding of this type of dog. (The Bandog.) It seems that most of the participants are carrying this over from other forums, so another view would be invaluable. Especially a view more informed that of my own, since I'm really a cat person. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)