Talk:Bullmastiff

Spelling
With a capital letter or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.35.97 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not, unless beginning a sentence or in a title, using "Title Case". — QuicksilverT @ 15:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Temperament
Is anyone going to add a "temperament" section anytime soon? If so send me a message, otherwise I'll try to get around to it sometime.Hound|Pharaoh == '' Hound]] 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it! Elf | Talk 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the temperament section, I'm thinking about adding that Bullies are hard to motivate, and are not necessarily stubborn. Also I would like to add more about the origins, in a separate section than working life, but it will repeat a little on what's in other sections. I am not sure about how to quote sources on Wikipedia, but most of my info is common knowledge for Bully people.

--Phil1981 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Temperament - clumsy but gentle
guys, I bred bullmastiffs for 20 years and although I agree with most statements, would like to add how lovely these gentle giants can be. They indeed may be clumsy due to is massive weight but most dogs are also gentle and did great with my toddlers. Any builds?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monicasaka (talk • MDD4696 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Color with a "u"
Given that the text spells it 'colour', I'll modify the title to fit. If some one would rather it was the other way around, then go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.199.82 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if the spelling is consistently British/Canadian/Australian — QuicksilverT @ 15:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

POV
Removing this sentence because its POV. Typical irrational dog owners can't understand the difference between their opinion of their dogs and facts appropriate

"Bullmastiffs are great guard dogs, great companions, beautiful, loving, independent, caring, loyal, determined, amazing dogs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.229.202 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox picture?
Does anybody else think that that is a horrible reprensation of the Bullmastiff, i'm new to wiki so if anybody else knows how to change the picture. Carbrini Tek. 11-8-09

Have you ever seen a bullmastiff 63.165.44.97 (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think that that dog looks unhealthily overweight? It was the first thing that struck me when i came across the page, i thought i'd clicked the wrong link. It looks like a bulldog with an appetite rather than a giant Boxer. Anyone else agree? ~Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.185.11 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A Boxer, please correct me if i am wrong, but I thought they were to look like a Mastiff, with a similar build to that of a bulldog. I do agree that the dog does look a little overweight though. 63.165.44.97 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, the boxer reference was simply subjective opinion. Would anyone know with any degree of certainty whether the pictured pooch is outside the weight standards for this breed?~Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.241.218 (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the dog is overweight but I have 4 bullmastiffs and the one in the first picture in particular looks to be several inches shorter than average. I've known them to carry over more mastiff or bulldog traits but that one looks to be 3/4 bulldog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.21.105 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In the first picture that bullmastiff is a poor representitive of the breed. It's like what the american bully is to the american pit bull terrier. Bullmastiffs are not fat and saggy like that, not the original ones anyways. They are lean and tall, big yes but muscle not fat kind of like a beefed up short jaw pitbull. Some please change the picture before more idiots think thats what a real bullmastiff looks like. I was walking with my dog the other day and he is a lean and tall bullmastiff and some dumbass told his friend thats not a real bullmastiff!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.161.1 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm updating the article now with pictures of my female bullmastiff. I think she does more justice for the look of the breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BootsSiR (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoever keeps reverting to the pictures of the obese bullmastiff, you're ruining the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BootsSiR (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Which pictures are better suited for the article, the ones being complained about here or the updated ones I have added? BootsSiR (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Half a ton?!
I'm not convinced this breed gets up to 1,000lbs. Until better proof exists (one harnessed and pulling a load of Amish, maybe), I've reduced this by a factor of 10.--Legomancer (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. That was vandalism. Surprised we didn't notice it earlier. Mokoniki | talk 14:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If, as it appears, it is an English dog, why is it the American Kennel Club standards that are listed?

Temperament again, plus standards
Which is true? Can the bullmastiff 'rarely show signs of aggression', and also be bred to 'immobilize poachers'? These two statements are contradictory. The AKC website comments on bullmastiffs: 'They needed fearless dogs that would attack on command'. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to know the facts, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that bullmastiffs exhibit aggression on command, or something similar.

If, as it appears, it is an English dog, why is it the American Kennel Club standards that are listed?

Personally, I don't usually worry too much about 'popular culture' sections, even though they are against WKP style. However, the one in this article is particularly poor. It is simply a list of films the the bullmastiff has popped up in, added to a long list of the names of dogs owned by celebrities. This section needs to be remixed with some genuinely interesting/relevant information added, or it should be removed altogether. Centrepull (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Give it up. Every single dog article on Wikipedia contains some variant of "Proud, noble, gentle, brave, godlike" gabble.  There's absolutely no sense in asking for citations, since the number of editors who worship their widdle puppies far outweighs those who retain a shred of objectivity about these smelly slobbering retard-wolves.  Rogerborg (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

''Which is true? Can the bullmastiff 'rarely show signs of aggression', and also be bred to 'immobilize poachers'? These two statements are contradictory''.

A Bullmastiff could immobilize you without showing aggression. the shear size of it means it could pin you on command. doesnt have to do it aggresively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.101.73 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
I've protected the page for a week because both Boots and 63.165.44.97 have violated 3RR several times over. P{lease both read our 3RR policy for future reference, and try to reach some kind of agreement or compromise here on talk. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How are we supposed to come to an agreement or compromise if he refuses to talk? There is a whole list of complaints about those pictures on the talk page. BootsSiR (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If he won't discuss, he loses his right to have input. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is the procedure once the page becomes unprotected if he still hasn't discussed it? Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but it's frustrating seeing a poor representation of the breed on a page many people use for reference. BootsSiR (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think give him time to respond first. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll check back in a week and see if he's commented. BootsSiR (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week and he's still not discussed the imaged. BootsSiR (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If he won't discuss the issue, it's reasonable for you to change the image to your preference, and thank you for being so patient. Protection is now lifted, by the way. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping settle the matter. I've updated the images. Feel free to keep watching the page as I'm sure he will revert them back as soon as he notices the change. Thanks again! BootsSiR (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture
Some of these might deserve mention if they can be expanded upon. However, an indiscriminate list of famous people's bullmastiffs we do not need. Rodface (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture
The first picture is NOT a bad representation of the breed. This dog is a Champion titled dog, by a long time, well known Bullmastiff breeder. He may be a heavier built dog, as the European standards prefer a bulkier build, however, the AKC standard states that all things being equal, a larger dog is more desirable, and preferred. A Bullmastiff should not be tall and leggy. The standard calls for males to be a maximum of 27" at withers. The back should be slightly shorter,  than height, and level, giving the dog a square appearance.  A Bullmastiff is a "square" breed.  The head should look square, muzzle should look square, body viewed from the side should appear square.  The second picture is a poor representation of the breed, IMO.  This dog looks leggy(although hard to tell as he is lying down), head is not square enough, and too much flew.  He looks too "Mastiffy", to me.  142.239.254.19 (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 10 years experience owning and showing Bullmastiffs

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015 and rottweiler
Rottweiler

66.87.80.128 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.

Persistent vandalism of AKC sourced dimensions
There appears to be long term vandalism of AKC weight standards, at this and other dog articles, most recently undertaken by IPs in a 2607:FB90 range. If it continues I'll request page protection. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are we relying on AKC breed standards for a British dog breed? Surely KC standards should take precedence.
 * KC standard: Height at shoulder: dogs: 64-69 cms (25-27 ins); bitches 61-66 cm (24-26 ins). Weight: dogs: 50-59 kgs (110-130 lbs); bitches: 41-50 kgs (90-110 lbs).
 * AKC standard: Dogs, 25 to 27 inches at the withers, and 110 to 130 pounds weight. Bitches, 24 to 26 inches at the withers, and 100 to 120 pounds weight. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The point isn't which standard is applied, so long as a standard is applied. What's been going on at numerous dog articles is pure data vandalism. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)