Talk:Giant Schnauzer/Archive 1

"The Rips"
I would like to know why the information regarding "The Rips," that was apparently last present in the version of this article dated 17 August 2009, was removed. I for one, if I were an owner or a potential owner of a Giant Schnauzer, would like to know to watch out for "The Rips," so that my Giant Schnauzer may not run at full speed directly into house guests, potentially flipping them overhead. This was some of the most useful information that I think was in this article. --CrumpyTheReindeer (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo and NPOV
This photo is almost definately not a Giant Schnauzer, because the dog is barely over the knees of the handler. A Giant Schnauzer would be significantly taller, therefore it is most likely a Standard Schnauzer. We should probably pull the photo and put out a request.

Also, does this article meet NPOV requirements for Wikipedia? It's mostly negative about this breed, and mentions almost nothing positive. JACooks 04:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

After examining some of the other dog breed articles, I would say this definately isn't a neutral point of view. Compare this page to the Siberian Husky article. That article notes all the health problems, and negative aspects of the breed, but also comments on the positives (loyal, friendly, etc.) This article focuses heavily on the exercise necessary and dominant nature, and doesn't discuss the breed's intelligence, family-orientation, and loyalty. I've owned both of these breeds, and think there are positives that are being missed in this article. I'm happy to edit this article, after a suitable period of being tagged NPOV. JACooks 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing here that looks inaccurate to me, just perhaps incomplete, which isn't the same as being NPOV. I encourage you to add appropriate info asap; no need to wait. Elf | Talk 15:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not imply inaccurate, it implies a one-sided viewpoint. That is what needs to be corrected. The following comments were added by IPs to the article, but should have been added here. I'm in the process of making changes to address all the concern. JACooks 12:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Potential expensive vet bills" is a possibility with any large purebred dog, and for that matter any dog. Getting a Giant doesn't mean you will have serious or any health issues at all. One does need to consider that these dogs do require regualr trips to the groomer's. Also a good quality diet is essential but the should be required to maintain the health of any dog.

I have been around many Giants and never known them to "become aggressive" as they mature. This article has been apparently written by someone who either does not like Giant Schnauzers or simply did not have accurate information.

They are strong willed but with early obedience training and patience, they are one of the best large breed dogs available.

This is not a Giant Schnauzer. More accurately it is a BRT.

I've removed the NPOV tag, since I think we've made enough changes that it is no longer so one-sided. We could still use more information, and also need a verified photo

Ideally don't all dogs "single track"?

Not nessescarily. Some dogs side track. My Giant actually does walk forward a little side ways, which is actually pretty funny since he's happy go lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urufu Wolfsbane (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Who says a Giant Schnauzer only would get 4 out of 5 stars for protection??? Is that a military/police ranking or someones opinion?? If a Giant Schnazuer only gets 4 out of 5 stars I would hate to see the dog that gets 5!! They are one of the top guards out there, even better than the overbred American German Shepherds, Pit Bulls, and Dobermans...what would be better?? Maybe some of the rare breeds like Fila Brasilero or Dogo Argentino...but I put a Giant up there with the very elite...I hate how opinions still constitute the majority of Wiki articles...(I dont have a username on here) Joe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.47.60 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Photograph question
Over on the Help Desk, a user has asked whether this article's photo shows the right breed of dog: please see Help_desk for discussion. Can a knowledgeable editor respond? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which photo? There are two photos on the page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It refers to the first main picture. The picture in Giant Schnauzer says "Other names Riesenschnauzer, Russian Bear Schnauzer". The article Black Russian Terrier has a picture that says "Other names 	Black Terrier, Tchiorny Terrier, Chornyi, Russian Bear Schnauzer, Russian Black Terrier". Are they the same breed? Are the "also known as" entries wrong? I don't know so I referred this for expert help. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Russian Bear Schnauzer" incorrect
In the section "other names", the name "Russian Bear Schnauzer" is incorrect, "sooty Bear Schnauzer is correct". "Rußiger" doesn't mean "russian" it means "sooty" ( Ruß = soot/grime/coom ), I'll change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.89.66 (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Giant Schnauzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317162434/http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/breedinformation/working/giantsch.html to http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/breedinformation/working/giantsch.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207063213/http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm to http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021040206/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1561/hsgiantschnauzer.pdf to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1561/hsgiantschnauzer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)