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)

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)

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)

Accurate Referrences of Swinfords Work

This page illustrates how Robinson only wishes to promote himself and his breeding program rather than have an accurate history of bandogs. He still has not cited any credible references to back up his claims that Swinford developed the modern bandog or that he has been influential throughout the world.

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 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)

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. - Vitaliy G 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Above you state you couldn't find any information about the "Swinford" or his work except in a google search...and now you state I exaggerate the impact of his work. Well, Swinford died in November of 1971. His work was published in 1972 in the SDJ and again by Jack kelly some years later but Kelly is a rather old man and doesn't publish his work on the net. Also Semencic's first book, The World of Fighting Dogs, was written in 1984...23 years ago and isn't really something you will find on the net either. His second book, Gladiator Dogs clearly outlines that his work about the Bandog recieved as much interest as all the other breeds in his first book...which included many breeds. And, even on "google" if one types in "Swinford Bandog" (as seen here... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Swinford+Bandog ) one will indeed come up with sources besides my website. Yes, my website is the first to come up on the list as we have the most thorough history of Swinford's work reported...but a huge list of links come up that also referrence his dogs. So, apparently you simply haven't done proper objective or thorough research to determine how influencial Swinford's work has been. How many bandog breeders have you talked to? How many do you know on a PERSONAL level? No offense, but I don't know you (not by the name Vitaliy G anyway) and I can't respond by identifying who the anonymous (unidentified) IP posters are....so, I question their information...BUT STILL I LEAVE IT UP. WP has room to allow for alternative views. Being my view is the only view here that is supported by documented and sited referrences, logic would conclude that WP should decide to include this accurate information...how can you not agree? SSDA71.195.158.57 11:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are misreading the comment that I have made regarding the Google search results, the point of that was to point out that nobody is using the word "Swinford" to refer to the Bandog as a whole, instead it is used to refer _directly_ to the bloodline within the Bandog dog type. Similarly when I say Donovan, I am referring specifically to the bloodline. The references that you keep listing, probably for the fourth time now, are out of place and have nothing to do with the argument that is being brought up to you specifically.

I am going to write this for the last time, and then simply start taking further action. No one is questioning the fact that Swinford did breed Bandogs, what people keep telling you is that he is not responsible for creating the modern Bandog, and while he had his "program" going there have been breeders doing this before him (in our time) and after him, he is not the creator of the modern Bandog and is simply another breeder. This is not a matter of alternative views, its a matter of facts. The references that you provide simply point out that he did breed dogs, your references do not point out that he is responsible for the modern Bandog. The modern example of a Bullmastiff, or Brazilian Bandogs ( http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:AW01ZttNrEIJ:ssbabandog.blogspot.com/2006/02/olde-brazilian-bandogge.html+Brazilian+Bandogs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us ) being bred all through out the 1900s, including during the time of Swinford, and countless other breeders. This does _not_ make Swinford any more special than the rest of them.

I have spoken to Bandog breeders, and I do not know them on personal level. - Vitaliy G 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you suggesting by stating "simply start taking further action?" Please explain what you mean here so there is no misunderstanding. Also, if you were to research the Donovan Pinscher, you would find that it is distguished by that name. It isn't just a bloodline. There are several lines of DP are there not? Now, with the Swinford breed there are also several lines. However, both (Swinford and DP) are types of Bandogs, yet not all bandogs are Swinfords or DP. Wouldn't you agree? There is NOTHING incorrect in these statements here...and in fact they can be documented with referrences (already provided). Now, it is no secrete that all the participants that are arguing to remove the Swinford information all come from the same group (simply view Bandog Banter...which as the name implies argues about Bandog information and is hardly a constructive web forum by truly being a "bantering" format which tries to manipulate and control what information is out there no matter how incorrect the preachings on the banter are). http://members.boardhost.com/bandog/msg/1192651084.html It can also be noted that the Bandog Banter hides IPs and identities, which produces questionable sources as a result. If you go to the SSDA you will NOT see such behavior. What you will see though is a group of people working together for the benefit of the breed.

"he is not the creator of the modern Bandog and is simply another breeder." I am not claiming he created the original bandog, nor am I claiming he created all of the bandog projects in existence today. I am stating...which is documented in the referrences I sighted...that his work was successful and most definately influenced more bandog project in existence today than any other. Also, I outlined that his type of modern bandog was derived from APBT and English Mastiff origin, contrary to a popular opinion that it was based upon Neapolitan...as photos we provided from our research clearly proved that Bantu's mother was an EM named "Octavia."...and, indeed...This too is not a matter of alternative views, its a matter of facts. The information you referred to about the Bullmastiff is of course welcome...as is the information you pointed out about the Brazilian Bandog. Feel free to include both if you so wish, but you can't honestly deny Swinford's contribution regardless of if you like it or not....because it is a fact.

"I do not know them on personal level"...well then, why not sit back and learn from those of us that have and do?

And, let's not overlook the fact that if one goes to nearly any of the various breed profiles on Wikipedia, you will find links to the various breed organizations...including some that don't see eye to eye or in conflict. It is my opinion, with the SSDA being a registry with the most Bandogs registered it should have a link on the Bandog site...just as you will see bullmastiff assocations on the bullmastiff page, boerboel associations on the boerboel page, etc.SSDA71.195.158.57 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just like a number of people have tried to edit Wikipedia article on Bandog in the past with you simply changing back, instead I got a moderator involved. Considering the fact that you are violating a number of policies, have used Wikipedia to advertise, and are refusing to directly respond to questions against numerous parties... I will start requesting a ban and continue working with the rest of the community.

The fact that the people are coming from Bandog Banter (Molosser World as well, by the way) makes no difference as long as they can cite their sources, not only that those people have the titles on their dogs to back up what they are saying. As a number of people have pointed out not only have you been banned from most of these boards, you lack the experience as well.

The statements that you just responded with are in fact true but what you wrote in the article is not.

"When describing Bandogs, it should be noted there have been many variations of such programs under a variety of names, but the breed commonly accepted as the Bandog today was developed in the 1960's by American veterinarian John Swinford, who set out to create a guardian dog superior to all others."

As I have pointed out, it is not a commonly accepted name, and he is not responsible for the modern Bandog. Once again, the references that you are providing simply state that he did breed the Mastiff with a Pit Bull, and I keep telling you that so have countless other people before, during, and after his time.

I am not sure how many times I am suppose to tell you that his work is not in question. "The information you referred to about the Bullmastiff is of course welcome...as is the information you pointed out about the Brazilian Bandog. Feel free to include both if you so wish, but you can't honestly deny Swinford's contribution regardless of if you like it or not....because it is a fact." I am glad you understand that, I would just hope that you would reflect that same opinion in the article (as quoted above on not only him being responsible for the Bandog but also being the best).

Please do address other peoples question as well in the discussion below. And with all due respect, with a person of your background, I'd rather not learn from you. Eh, Chimera Bulldogs?

The other dog pages link to real organizations that promote the breed, and not use the website to sell puppies. Is SSDA even recognized by the FCI? - Vitaliy G 21:23, 19 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)

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)

Perhaps you should talk to some bandog owners worked with...both people that have dogs related to ours and also other Bandog owners like Leri Hanson, who registered her Bandog with the SSDA so she could compete in FR. Without a registration, she wouldn't have been able to compete and we helped her achieve her goal. Could she have done it without us? I am sure she could have, but she chose our registry I assume because we have the only registry that requires the dogs to work before being bred. Although her dog had nothing to do with our program, the SSDA simply focussed on working together with other Bandog enthusists that are dedicated to performance dogs...as as a result we told her NOT to send any money for her registration as she was willing to go out and compete with her dog. She donated a small amount to the SSDA, but that was her choice...as she knew I spent my own money printing the registration forms, paying shipping fees, and doing the work on the computer...and I never asked her for a dime. But, don't take my word for it if you don't want to. You can ask her. Our goal is for people to work together so these fine dogs can become an established working dog.71.195.158.57 04:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your statement: also other Bandog owners like Leri Hanson, who registered her Bandog with the SSDA so she could compete in FR. Without a registration, she wouldn't have been able to compete and we helped her achieve her goal."

Completely untrue and lends to the nature of you exaggerations and embellishments. Under NARA rules and policies the dog would be allowed to and HAVE to compete as a “Blue Dog” regardless of your “registration” You are again attempting to take credit for something you had no hand in.

From the NARA policies:

2. The dog must have a score book issued by NARA, CRA, S.C.C. or an FCI recognized Dog Sport Organization before trialing."

"6. To obtain a NARA Scorebook: (a) The dog must be registered with a National Registry. (b) All Scorebook Applications must be sent to the NARA Treasurer, AND be accompanied by a copy of the dog’s registration papers and appropriate fees. (c) Scorebook Applications are available on the NARA Website (http://www.ringsport.org) under ‘Membership Info’. (d) Applications may be printed, completed, and mailed to the Treasurer with appropriate documentation and fees, OR (e) Applications may be submitted on-line via the NARA Website, and the appropriate documentation may be faxed or mailed to the Treasurer. (f) It will take 4-6 weeks to process a Score book, once ALL of the paperwork and fees are received by the Treasurer. Anyone applying in less time cannot expect to receive a Scorebook any sooner.

7. Blue Dog Scorebook: For a Scorebook for an un-registerable dog, an unapproved breed, or a male dog not sexually intact, N.A.R.A. has established a "Blue Dog" Score Book. The Blue Dog may compete in trials and be awarded titles, but he/she cannot win the NARA Championship, or the Cup of the America’s or compete, in France. There is no limit as to how many Blue Dogs a handler may compete with (New, 6-22-2004)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.244.56 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to debate this. If you wish, you can contact Leri and ask her if she contacted the SSDA and asked us if she could register her dog so she could obtain a registration...as she needed one so she could compete in K9 sports. Now, if it wasn't FR, my apologises...but that doesn't change the fact of why she contacted us or why we registered her Bandog. Simple enough.

There is NO debate here, you got caught in yet another Untruth. FACTS: Leri DOES compete in FR with her Bandog and DOES NOT need any registration as you tried to state. This is a perfect example of you constant distortion of facts to try and add some kind of validity and promotion to your selling of pups.

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)

Actually, it's not for me to decide. The content of Wikipedia pages is decided by a nebulous concept we call consensus, guided by the policies I described above. I'm not here to judge the merits of specific facts or citations. In an ideal Wikipedia world, all of the editors on an article will improve the content by strictly adhering to the policies of what makes a good article, while avoiding making edits which serve other purposes. This is why I have spent most of my energy on directing all the editors in this dispute to the appropriate pages and insisting that discussion happen before further reversion. Part of successfully creating this article is a willingness to look at the bigger picture from all involved. I suspect that this dispute over the modern history of this dog breed is not unique to Wikipedia; in fact, it seems that it's spilling over from some other forum. As such, I started an RFC, or "request for comment", which basically posts a request on a central page for other editors to contribute their thoughts on this matter. It's important to step back and try to understand why other people see things differently, and look at finding the common ground so that work can be made towards a resolution. If, once the protection is lifted, the page simply gets reverted back and forth, no one wins. And then some administrator who is more prone to these things than I am will simply lock the page for a longer term, or block the editors who are doing the reverts. So (and I say this to all the editors involved in this dispute,) if your intention is to continue a long-term dispute about this breed of dog in yet another forum, then please just leave here. That's not what Wikipedia is here for. But if you want to improve our free encyclopedia, then stick around, learn our policies, and edit in accordance with them. kmccoy (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The SSDA's sole purpose for editing the wikipedia article is self promotion not historical accuracy. He's not recognized as an expert in bandogs or dogs in particular by anyone except those he sells pets to. That is the crux of the matter. He is again making claims that he has never substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.116.43 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to dispute or argue with the opposing view. My intent is not to debate, but only to provide accurate information. It has been made clear to me a said group of people has issues with me (on another forum in which I do not participate on). So be it. IMO, their issue with me is irrelivant. What is relivant however is the truth about Swinford, his dogs, and what is being done today. It is my belief that it doesn't matter if a particular party doesn't like giving credit to his work. What does matter, is his work has been published, has influenced many breeders throughout the world, and can be referrenced as being successful and influencial by more publications than any other modern Bandog breeder.

As far as kennels are concerned...nearly every breed club in existence is operated to some degree by the breeders of said breed...because these are the people intersted in the breed history and interested in protecting and maintaining the dogs in their true form. It isn't about business, but simply a matter of who is interested to do the proper research. Although I make a living as a teacher and not off the SSDA, I can say I have studied Swinford's work most extensively and pursued a professional education in Animal Sciences...which all can be verified if need be. Therefor, I would think my willingness to share my research of his work therefore should be welcomed. I do understand your concern about business or commerical websites, but again...the SSDA is not a business or money making adventure. It does not make money of accepting registrations. Again, thank you for your help in resolving this matter. It does stem from a party I am aware of that participates in limiting free speach in order try to control the information that is out there...but the information I have provided is not only accurate, but also verifiable by the referrences I sited. As you requested, I will carefully view the referrences sections of WP and also review in detail of the WP-COI pages before I attempt any futher modifications to the Bandog information pages. Thank you again for providing this free encyclopedia. I hope the investigation by WP is thorough enough to confirm my statements as true...as if it is investigated thoroughly I am confident the truth will become visible. And, being WP clearly is interested in sharing free information...well, I am confident that WP will make the right decision. Have a nice day. User:SSDA\SSDA71.195.158.57 11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SSDA--you say you don't make a profit. Can you verify how many litters of puppies you have on the ground at this time and how many litters of puppies you have bred this year? I understand from your site that the prices of the puppies are between $800 and $2,000--the mien being $1,000. Your message board is loaded with puppy updates and pictures with availability noted. Is it really true that you have been breeding Swinford's for 10 years? I remember 5 years ago you were floundering posting on every dog message board asking newbie questions and trying to figure out exactly what your "program" would be called--I remember "Chimera Bulldog" as a possibility you threw out there. Can you answer these respectful questions--you never really answered these questions before just turned everything around attacked me, and yelled slander and jealousy. I am a bandog fan--not a breeder. I have no reason other than observing your lack of character, bad behavior and your over-all limited and mostly faulty knowledge on dogs and dog training being posted on the www day in and day out. Another question--are you banned from practically every dog message board on the www? Why is that?72.193.58.153 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous 72.193.58.153,

First, your accusation is very suggestive, but it is based upon many assumptions. You forget that in a number of the breedings we do we keep entire litters. Second, you forget that we don't sell a number of the dogs we place, as we put some into the hands of other partners within the SSDA. Like I said before, we don't make money for the dogs. If you look at our site, you will not see any prices except on Pyro...who is only $400 + shipping and realize he is now nearly 100# and 9+ months old...and has about $400 invested in him. The costs of my kennel are far greater than the income generated by the dogs. If I was in it for profit, I would have selected a breed already established. We chose to work with the Swinford because we are dedicated to this breed and recreating and maintaining Swinfords work...as the dogs don't even pay for themselves. Remember...I am professional in education and that is how I make my living. I have been studying Swinford's work since the early 1990 (91 I believe to be exact). I didn't start breeding them though until 2000. Now, why would a person who has had dogs all his life and has two degrees in Animal Sciences, that worked with an Akita Rescue to train numerous dogs and find them homes...have to "fumble around" on the internet. At one time we considered a variety of names for the Swinford...but Swinford was what we opted to go with for the same reason the name Dobermann was selected in referrence to Louis Dobermann's work. The group messageboards I am banned from are owned and operated by people that are all in the same camp...all of which are also banned from my forum...for just as they are doing on the Banter now...they have done here and also in the past have done on my forum...so it was best that eventually we went our own ways. The only way I have found to do this is to not participate on the Banter (even though they still talk about our work with an obsession) dispite the fact that I leave this nonsense OFF the SSDA board. Even this discussion about Wikipedia is not mentioned on the SSDA board. Should I bring it up there? No...I don't think so. I don't think a consensus means who can plague WP with the most spam or personal attacks. Instead, I think we should stick with information that can be documented in published reports such as journals or books. And, perhaps either no associations OR all associations should be listed....but not one sided information.SSDA71.195.158.57 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Profit?? Oh hell yes he does, He is only here to sell Puppies. He is making tens of thousands a year at his published prices. He estimated then that he would sell around 30 pups in 2006. That is 30K at his average price. Pretty good money for nowhere Mississippi, maybe ever more than he makes as a "teacher". More evidence of his VESTED interest in this page!

Lee's own words from December 28, 2005

"That's all the Swinford breedings I have done in the last 3-4 years...a total of 14 breedings on our yard. Question 1. That makes 14 litters devided by 3.5 years for an average of 4 breedings per year. But the truth of it is in the past we only did about 2 breedings per year and now we are doing about 5 breedings per year. With about HALF of these breedings being available to the public. Many of those Whopper breedings in the past had very small litters (this is a known occurance with ANY line of dogs that are highly inbred), but our Swinford dogs with the Whopper influence have been producing large litters due to the outcross. I think Bullette had 10 in her first litter with 8 surviving. This time she is HUGE. I expect 12-14 pups by the size of her. I prefer a litter around 8. Question 3. I suspect I have sold about 50 pups in 3 1/2 years with the rest being kept by myself or friends to evaluate. That would be an average of about 14 pups a year, but the truth of it is earlier we were probably selling 5 pups a year and now we are probably selling closer to 20 pups a year. This year I am certain I will sell more pups than that...as I will probabaly sell about 30 pups this year." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.244.56 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The reply above is absurd. First off, it is based soley on assumptions and could not be supported by "WHO, WHERE, or WHEN" which according to internet slander laws is a requirement. If you are going to suggest my motives, I would suggeest you get your facts correct. We don't take in near what you propose...and we spend every bit of it and then some ONLY to put it back into the development of the Swinford breed and various club assocations that we choose to support. Please tell me who, where, and when I sold dogs to that would add up to that amount of money?71.195.158.57 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SSDA - the information was taken from you own messageboard QUOTE on December 28, 2005 and Puppy Prices PUBLISHED by YOU on your own website! Sorry but it doesn't take a Math Major to figure it out.

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

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)

A possible solution

Why not create a new Wikipedia page about the Swinford bandog and instead of supplying a link to my website on the "Bandog" page, we simply provide a link to the new "WP- Swinford Bandog" page. On that page, more information can be reported about how the SSDA is making efforts to recreate and preserve Swinford's work and such...

Some effort needs to be made anyway to distinguish "old history" from "modern history" of the bandog as the two really have very little in common besides a name (also varifiable by documentable text referrences). For one, Bandogs of old were did not contain APBT influence. Next, Bandogs today are not used to catch pouchers. Bandogs of old originated in England. Modern "Swinford" type bandogs originated in the US. And, a list of other variations too exist...but due to limited time I will save further explaination of the differences for a new page should one decide to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.158.57 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the same issues would then come up on the Swinford Bandog page, and instead should simply be addressed here until we come to a conclusion. I do not completely agree with the assertion, the only reason Bandogs of old did not contain APBT influence is simply because the breed did not exist. Instead Bandogs of old used Bulldogs and Bull and Terriers which performed the same job. Besides, a Bandog does not necessary have to have an APBT in the first place (ie: American Bulldog x English Mastiff). By poachers, do you mean hunting? The claim that Swinford is somehow responsible for creating the modern Bandog is something I disagree with. You are making it sound as if no one was breeding Bandogs, and Swinford showed up to re-create this old concept, that is simply not true. - Vitaliy G 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems the main problem here is the promotion of a brand of product(bandog). This could be solved very easily with the removal of all breeders names and simply describe the history, modern recipes, and function of the animals. This would remove all conflict of interest and still be very informative. One could describe breeding programs in the general terms, for instance F-1 crosses, several generation deep breeding programs. The article would not suffer with the loss of specific breeders mentioned. The only people it would affect are those looking for market presence. For instance look at the bullmastiff page on wikipedia. Follow that as a guideline.

Best regards, Jodee

Jodee and Kmmcoy,

I hope it goes noted that I am trying to work with the opposing view. I have left the original version of information up, and only added to it. I did not remove the original WP information about Bandogs. They however have removed ours and refuse to compromise...repeatedly. Then they added their version. I then again left their views up and only added to it. They removed our updates again. Later it evolved into an "undo" fest one could say...as we became more aware with WP procedure for solving disputes. While doing this...I would like to say very frankly, I don't have any desire for my kennel website to be listed, but just as every breed description on WP, we see a list of assocations involved with the breeds...and I believe readers should have the OPTION to contact various associations about various breeds.

Now, when it comes to bandogs, it is not my fault there is currently only one breed specific assocation about the bandog (the Swinford Sporting Dog Assocation, which was founded in 1992) that is currently dedicated to the Bandog as a breed...but dispite this if any new associations are created I believe they too should be listed...all serious breed specific associations should be listed just as is done with other breeds on the WP sites. Again, as far as I am concerned, all views should be listed. I am not interested in regulating their opinions, but if truth is the goal than all sources of history...and MOST CERTAINLY THE DOCUMENTED HISTORY and DOCUMENTED MODERN WORK.

The group with the opposing view is FREE to unite and create a Bandog assocation of their own if they so chose to do so...than it too could be listed. Let's not overlook the fact that if one goes to nearly any of the various breed profiles on Wikipedia, you will find links to the various breed organizations...including some that don't see eye to eye or in conflict. It is my opinion, with the SSDA being a registry with the most Bandogs registered it should have a link on the Bandog site...just as you will see bullmastiff assocations on the bullmastiff page, boerboel associations on the boerboel page. Anyway, these are only a couple suggested solutions. If I can come up with some others, I will gladly do so and share them.

In conclusion, I also hope that you can see their motive isn't the education or truth, but only that of destruction as their statements are unsupported personal attacks and not that of documented history...as what they have posted here is largely based upon assumptions UNLIKE the information I reported which can be sited and referrenced. I look forward to a speedy resolution on this matter...remembering the readers should have the choice to decide. "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bringthem the real facts." --Abraham Lincoln. Another... "When even one American - who has done nothing wrong -- is forced byfear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all of Americans are inperil." -- Harry S. Truman.

Thank you.SSDA71.195.158.57 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)