Talk:Greyhound

Disputed Comments
Since someone marked three statements in the article as disputed, but didn't bother to explain why I'm tempted to remove the disputed claims. However that seems inapproprieate here, so I'll provide my arguements for supporting the current statements.

Claim 1: racing

The article states: "Changes in public opinion regarding blood sport has essentially removed the Greyhound from hunting and relegated the breed to parimutuel stakes racing."

In a section about Greyhounds in racing, it seems like this is about right. One might suggest that the section should be renamed to be something like "Greyhounds as working animals" or "Greyhounds in Sport" and more detail about other work they perform might be suggested (vet research is about the only other "work" I'm aware of modern Greyhounds doing, and I'm aware of no other legal modern professional sporting).

Claim 2: Conditions

The article states: "The conditions under which racing greyhounds are kept are considered by some people to be inhumane."

As someone with a companion Greyhound I would like to say that I believe the care many of the Greyhounds I have met was inhumane (prior to being picked up by adoption groups). The deaths of large numbers of dogs due to basic lack of medical care is well documented. While some people feel the treatment is acceptable, others feel it is inhumane therefore the statement is accurate. I'm not clear here what is at dispute. I think a longer discussion of treatment is more appropriate in the article on Greyhound racing, and indeed there is more there.

Claim 3: Killings

The article states: "In the late 20th century, many Greyhound adoption groups began taking Greyhounds from the racetracks when they could not compete and placing them in adoptive homes. Before this, most retired Greyhounds were killed(disputed — see talk page); some still are."

Again this is well documented. I'm not clear what is disputed about this statement. Only one US state requires that all racing dogs be adopted, all others allow for the euthenization of the animals and conditions are worse outside the US. If someone would like to propose alternative language, that may be proper, but it seems to me that the current statement is accurate.

If other users would like to propose alternative wordings to these statements I would see that as a part of the wikipedia writing process, but simply removing them would (in my opinion) remove important information.

--Ahc 14:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * An anonymous user has repeatedly removed these statements with no justification and has now inserted the "dubious" clauses. These items aren't dubious. One can start looking here and here for information; there's lots more available. If the anon person would like to discuss why they think that these claims are dubious or otherwise discuss why he/she wants these statements removed, but otherwise it appears to be vandalism.  So I am reverting again. Elf | Talk 20:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * works for me --Ahc 02:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't see much dubious about these sentences. They may be somewhat offensive, but only in their content. They are definitely a fair description of reality, so they should stay. MasterDirk 12:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The comments highlighted as 'dubious' are tendentious and the writer’s opinions should not be so near the surface in a Wikipedia entry. There are other forums for opinions.


 * We've listed some reliable sources to back up the statements as fact. Can you list some reliable sources that show that they aren't? Elf | Talk 17:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point is that the entry for ‘greyhound’ is almost wholly from the perspective of the dog lover/rescuer perspective. Admirable in itself, but not right for a Wikipedia entry. It is apparently OK to use a loaded remark like "The conditions under which racing greyhounds are kept are considered by some people to be inhumane." And justify its inclusion by saying, essentially, that it’s true that some people believe the statement, so it can be included in the entry. But you might equally say: "It is some people’s opinion that President Bush is a religious zealot with the IQ of an amoeba." The statement itself is so loaded that it is obvious that the writer is using it as a ‘no comeback’ way of putting forward their world view. In a small way that’s what’s happening here. And Wikipedia shouldn’t be hijacked anywhere to put forward the narrow views of special interest groups.
 * If the paragraph in mentioned you adjusted as follows you would you be more comfortable with it?


 * In part due to the fact that some people feel the conditions under which racing greyhounds are kept are inhumane, in the late 20th century, many Greyhound adoption groups began taking Greyhounds from the racetracks when they could not compete and placing them in adoptive homes. Before this, most retired Greyhounds were killed; some still are.


 * I know it's a small change, but it tones down the statements, and makes them part of the background. My other problem is that this makes the sentence too long, but that could be fixed with more thought. Since all the information is true, and is there in part to direct people to other articles (I'll add a more obivous link to the GH racing article in a moment) that cover the issues in more detail, and in part because racing is what people think of when they think of Greyhounds.  The other word I questioned changing was killed but since euthanization is not universal for those dogs not adopted, I'm not sure what another appropriate word is in this context. --Ahc 21:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Killed is about as neutral a word as there is. Replacing it with softer verbage would be just as inappropriate as using loaded words like "murdered" would be. If a neutral word that describes something doesn't sound nice, it is because the thing it describes is not nice, not the word itself. Reality isn't always nice. Neutrality doesn't mean making things sound nicer than they are with euphemisms. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I own a Greyhound that was abused, so when you say things like "The conditions under which racing greyhounds are kept are considered by some people to be inhumane" are controversial, I take a stand against this. My Greyhound has scars from abuse and had his tail cut from abuse in his life as a racer; so to say that his life as a race dog as inhumane is quite accurate. Axelremain (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing Information/Possible Example to Assist
O.K., so maybe I'm way off base here, but which Greyhound do you feel is the most well-known in the world? Which Greyhound exemplifies all the more positive aspects of this breed? Which Greyhound has his fame rooted in his original owner repudiating and ostricizing him as a racing dog who was well past his prime and irresponsibly turning him loose on the streets to live or die as fate chose? There is only one Greyhound I know of that meets all these criteria and more.

Unfortunately, he is also a fictional cartoon. Still, as a pop culture icon that exemplifies many of the points made in the article, wouldn't Santa's Little Helper be ideal to include as a broad socially notable example of the breed and their characteristics? Weaponofmassinstruction 04:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How world-wide known is this dog? I happen to know who he is because I watched a few episodes of the Simpsons, and I know that the Simpsons are popular--but world-wide? I have no objection to mentioning it as an example, however, with enough info to put it in context for those unfamiliar with the simpsons.  Elf | Talk 23:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Valid points all. I'll get back to you with international syndication data.... once I find some. (Sure would be nice if they were in the Wikipedia) Weaponofmassinstruction 04:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to Internet Movie Database, the Simpsons is translated into 12 languages other than English: Spanish, Albanian, French, Japanese, German, Russian, Hindi, Swahili, Swedish, Turkish, Cantonese, and Mandarin.

Additionally, the same source lists Rating Certifications in 9 Countries outside the North American Continent (for a total of 12 when you include The United States, Canada, and Mexico): Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Singapore, Spain, and The United Kingdom. This of course precludes any country which does not have/use Rating Certifications, though I cannot see any rationale for translating to Russian for the Brazilian market.

I would think this qualifies as fairly International recognition, provided that the IMDB hasn't mucked it up and missed any. Weaponofmassinstruction 06:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Then it does make sense to add something. Go for it. Elf | Talk 07:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SLH Stomach Problems
User:Ahc has indicated that Santa's Little Helpers' stomach problems were probably bloat. From what I can recall, the animated character Dr. Hibbert diagnosed this problem as either "twisted bowel" or "twisted stomach". Since I haven't confirmed that either of these two terms are actual Veteranary or Medical terms, I left them out. Anyone feel like clarifying this? Weaponofmassinstruction 18:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I only have vage memories of that episode as well, but twisted stomach is one of the forms of bloat (current bloat article needs work from what i can tell). I know Hibbert didn't call it bloat, but that's common to GH's and probably what inspired the thought.  If it bothers people I wont be insulted in the least if the comment is removed. --Ahc 20:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it was "twisted stomach."

It doesn't bother me in the least... I was just kinda hoping to have the whole "probably" bit clarified with something a bit more definite. I've got some time on my hands, I'll cruise the rest of the net for more info to verify just what to call it. Weaponofmassinstruction 03:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the research to sort that out. --Ahc 04:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greyhounds
I believe that the greyhound definition is totally misleading, because untrue. Greyhounds are not bred to run, they are not bred to be exploited. I demand a change. 158.148.92.144 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC). I believe that the greyhound definition is totally misleading, because untrue. Greyhounds are not bred to run, they are not bred to be exploited. I demand a change. It needs to be specified that the racing industry is not doing them any good. This is an objective view. 158.148.92.144 (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Above comments
The article is about the greyhound and not greyhound racing. Various other greyhound racing pages are well documented and referenced. Your comment is not an objective view because the term objective means 'not influenced by an individual's personal viewpoint'. If you have neutral comments with well referenced citations then feel free to add them to the relevant article page. ApricotFoot (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)