Talk:Greyhound/Archive 1

Adoption Links
I am afraid that if we continue to include a link to every adoption organization in the country, that will overwhelm this article. Perhaps beginning a new article on Greyhound adoption would be appropriate. Mikieminnow 02:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There already is an article on Greyhound adoption, and yes, in general we've been moving links to adoption groups there. --Ahc 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Bitches
Please don't remove the correct nomenclature for a female dog.Mikieminnow 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Size
in the American Kennel Club website (akc.org) the weight of the Dog is 70 pounds (32 kg).


 * Perhaps. But this article covers size ranges, not standard. To many Greyhound owners, the AKC is far from the definitive source on Greyhound information. Also, please sign your comments in the future. Mikieminnow 12:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

36 kg it's 80 pounds not 90 pounds.

if the AKC isn't a definitive source who kennel club is the source?


 * For starters the vast majority of Greyhounds in the US (let alone worldwide) are not AKC hounds. The majority are racing hounds and do not meet the AKC breed standard. There is no kennel club that sets a standard it is an issue of measuring the dogs.  If you review information from groups like Adopt-a-greyhound you will notice they provide feeding guidelines for greys up to 118 pounds.  At a quick glance online I didn't find good numbers outside of the rules for dogs that are racing (and most of those have to do with sudden changes in weight).  When I have more time I may try to flip through a few books to find a more reliable measure.
 * You are quite right that we'd allowed the metric and US measures to get out of sync. I took a moment just now to correct that, thank you for point it out. --Ahc 03:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Rating
I rated the article as B-Class this morning. My general thoughts are that while the article has developed decent content, it lacks adequate references. This information still feels a little thin as well. --Ahc 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ill Treatment of Greyhounds
I feel there is a complete lack of information about the ill treatment of greyhounds. A search BBC new search reveals quite a few articles about the abuse of Greyhounds. I don't know what its like in the rest of the world, but in the UK, thousands are abandoned and brutally killed each year, as any news site will inform you. Please can someone add something about this, I would but I do not believe i could be impartial on this matter, and any addition by me would be biased.
 * Maintaining a proper balance in this article is quite hard. Most people (that know about greys) feel very passionately about the treatment of racing dogs, one way or the other, there is very little consensus.  There is a longer discourse on Greyhound treatment on the Greyhound racing article.  If you feel more content is needed here, go ahead and add it (with references please), other editors will work to protect the neutrality of the content, and you'll learn better form as you go. --Ahc 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Americanization" of measurerments
I'm not too happy with the "Americanization" that just happened. As far as I know, The US has adopted the International System of Units (SI), meaning metric measurments are preferred. I don't mind inches and pound added, but I think we should adhere to international (and US) standards and place metric standards first. --Edokter (Talk) 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not use the International System of Units. Since this is Wikipedia English, written from an American POV, the primary measurements should be in American units. Mikieminnow 12:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhm... Wikipedia being an "English Language" encyclopedia does not mean it is an American encyclopedia. Articles are usually written from a global POV from the entire English speaking community. I've asked for some input on the Village Pump. --Edokter (Talk) 13:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several months ago we converted all measurements to metric since it was my (and others) understanding that metric first was the Wikipedia standard. We've also worked hard to avoid this article becoming any more from American POV then it already is.  The policy about measurements was posted at the village pump in response to Edokter's comment is here.  It's not as strict as I recall it being, but I don't see a clear reason here not to use SI measure measurements.  Since the measurements are still unsourced (something we should really fix) the case of dispute leaves us without guidance.  I'd like to propose that since the metric units have stood for several months without problem, we return to them until we can come up with a good reason to pick one or the other.--Ahc 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with that. We might encounter a problem sourcing the sizes/weights since the Greyhound as a breed has evolved into several specialties. What might be common for a show Greyhound might not be common for a pure racing dog. Australian racers may be smaller (or larger) on average than American racers. BTW, didn't mean to offend when I stated that this was American POV. Mikieminnow 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time I tried sourcing outside of the AKC was harder then I expected, although I didn't take as much time to look as I should have. Thank you for agreeing to revert for the time being, I'll do that now before too many more changes get made.  I'll try to replace those that were useful since then. --Ahc 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The general rule of thumb here is when the subject of an article is about an American topic, (i.e. B-52 Stratofortress), we use U.S. units primarily and metric units secondarily. When it is about a topic that isn't specifically American, like this one, we use metric units primarily and U.S. units secondarily.  Perhaps an article that is about a topic that is of no great interest to a U.S. audience, (like Copenhagen Metro) can omit U.S. units completely.  --rogerd 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everyone's input. I had mis-interpreted this rule of thumb and applied what I thought I had understood to the article. I hope we don't go to the extreme of omitting US measurements as many Americans don't have much reference to metric units. Ahc, I think we will find it difficult to establish standards for different types of Greyhounds. Most people who accept the AKC (show) type as standard won't accept race or international type as a standard and vice versa. There is much debate in the Greyhound community regarding correct type, perhaps that should be explored more in the article. Mikieminnow 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

POV edit?
Should I revert this? --Edokter (Talk) 12:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's pretty much already taken care of. Take a look at it again and see if you think more might be done. Mikieminnow 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Still feels pretty biased to me. I'm not clear why the paragraph is needed, but if we keep it the pro-senior nature of it needs to be addressed more aggressively. --Ahc 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and took it out. Perhaps information about adopting seniors should be in Greyhound Adoption.__Mikieminnow 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone contributes some there we can think about it. Again, I'm not clear that much discussion of seniors is needed, but that's just my opinion, so I'm open to whatever people add.  --Ahc 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture in info box
I think it is important to get a nice image of a well stacked Greyhound to put in the infobox. I admit it's nice to see images of contributors dogs, and I'm sure they're just thrilled to have their dogs featured on wikipedia, but none of these pictures are truly proper representatives of the breed. Mikieminnow 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the new image is a slight improvement over the previous, but by and large I think Mikieminnow's right that a better image would be best. --Ahc 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Greyhounds as mascots
The list of mascots is growing and growing. Would it be accepted/appropriate to branch this off onto a page of it's own? My reasoning is that while it is related, does the fact that a Greyhound is a mascot need to take up so much of the article? One example that I researched is for 'Lion', undoubtedly a popular mascot. There is no space dedicated in the main article to the use of Lion as a mascot. Mikieminnow 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I kind of want to get back to this. The sports mascot section is becoming quite cumbersome and bloated. I'd like to remove it or move it to a page of it's own. Any comments? Mikieminnow 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we can replace the entire high scholl section with "numerous high schools"; it really doesn't add any information. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ontario Hockey League is not a pro league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.68.18 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Userbox for Greyhound owners
I couldn't find a userbox showing ownership of this wonderful and majestic breed, so have created one, as well as a category to help find other owners. Please feel free to use it on your user page, by adding the following code:   Will get you this: Shamanchill (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Greyhound-horse comparison
Removed para on greyhound outracing horse. All it demonstrated was that a greyhound completed a track faster than one particular horse - not that "greyhounds are faster than horses" as claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.203.179 (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mac
I have added Mac (from the TV series, Clifford the Big Red Dog) to the notable greyhounds part. --Sharpay Evans 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's notable enough; even the Clifford's article doesn't mention a character named Mac. --Edokter (Talk) 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. He's in about half the episodes and even has merchandising based on him. --Sharpay Evans 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

He exists on the wikipedia page, Mac that is, and is noted as a greyhound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.21.134 (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Temperament (Wonderful pets?)
"With their excellent temperaments and gentle natures, greyhounds, including retired racing greyhounds, make wonderful pets."

Doesn't this violate NPOV? At the very least, it should be sourced. It looks like it was directly copied from a greyhound-adoption site. 207.69.139.135 04:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps change it to 'considered by many to make wonderful pets'? 88.109.31.235 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments about them making wonderful pets is an arbitrary statement. I enjoy the company of a greyhound, but if your idea of a wonderful pet is one that plays fetch, you have the wrong dog. Completely arbitrary and biased statement. Also using the wording 'considered by many to make wonderful pets'? as suggested above is to vague that it supplies no information. You could say ' There is at least one person that considers greyhounds to make wonderful pets.' To say many though your implying that out of 6 billion people in the world, a good many of them consider greyhounds to be a wonderful pet, which is false and obviously bias.

I changed this slightly. On average they are wonderful pets. It is true, and not often discussed that they growl and snap in a some what frequent or reactionary way. Though reactionary in ways you may not expect or want. This is important to note, for someone looking to adopt a pet, but often overlooked due to the fact Adoption agencies want to have them adopted. As such I would appreciate this edit not being removed. I personally am struggling with this myself. Others have the problem, but it is not very well documented due to adoption agencies. The pack mentality is stronger than one may realize or understand. 128.119.21.50 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vulnerable Native Breed
This breed is classed in Britain as a VNB - a breed which originated in the UK but now has registration numbers with the Kennel Club of less then 300 puppies per year.

I'm a Canadian teenager on a gap year before Uni and I'm really interested in this. Would anyone like a VNB paragraph/link on this page? I can write it, but am ignorant about formatting etc. Plus, I'm trying to put together a whole collection on all 29 breeds on this list, including history and so on, using Wikipedia as one of my many sources. If you can help, or are interested at all, please contact me either on my talk page or at green_ied_dragon@hotmail.com

--The Wizard of Magicland 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The greyhound is not a Vunerable Native Breed. The main breeding industry for Greyhounds is in Ireland where on average 36,000 are bred per year as registered in the Irish Stud Book which is kept by the Irish Coursing Club. This stud book is similar to the one kept for Thouroughbred horses. All other stud books including the UK Stud Book (kept by the NGRC) are linked to the Irish Stud Book; and any greyhound not registered in the Irish stud book, or its counterparts in the UK, Austrailia, and the USA is not recognised as a purebred greyhound. In other words a Kennel Club registered greyhound would not be acceptable for breeding greyhounds used in Racing or Coursing and therefore the majority of greyhound breeders wouldn't even consider registering their animals with the Kennel Club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquesdemolay92 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Media -> Pop Culture
I'd like some discussion about this change. I don't feel that Pop Culture accurately describes the material in this sub-heading. For example Don Quixote is to me not pop culture but more media (not in the sense of news, but in the broader sense).

Mikieminnow 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I felt it better described the section then 'Media' did, as that only relates to thing like TV, movies etc, but certainly not Greyhound busses... At least 'Culture' can relate to anything in life. Edokter 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mikieminnow that 'Pop Culture' doesn't seem accurate. I think I'd rather see us either use something like Cultural references to Greyhound. At the very least I think we should switch to Popular Culture since we should avoid using abbreviations without introductions. --Ahc 14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is 'Popular Culture'. Only Mikieminnow referred to it as Pop Culture. Edokter 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how I referred to it, Pop*ular* culture is a misnomer. According to the Wikipedia entry, "Popular culture, or pop culture, (literally: "the culture of the people") consists of widespread cultural elements in any given society". Since we are including references to Greyhounds from different cultures and societies, this transcends what should be classified as Popular Culture. I do like Ahc's suggestion of Cultural references to Greyhound. Mikieminnow 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This dog is a very good pet for any person with a dog of most any age and is one of the sweetest dogs any body could own. If you need a pet and are looking for a dog this sweet loving dog is the one for you these are some health information you might want to think about and fitness. This breed of dog is a farly big dog so take warning of small children or people with mentle problems. The Grey Hound was first known for its racing skills and loves to take walk at least one a day and should have its teeth brushed once ever week make sure to brush its hair. and feed it food its been eating sense you got it at the store or else it will get sick to its stomic and always bring it to the vet once a year to check if your taking good care of your dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.65.29 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can agree to that. My biggest gripe was that 'Media' was totally irrelevant. Edokter 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are notable greyhounds to be added or not? For example the family dog of the Simpsons, Santa's Little Helper, is one. --Antihelios (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd fastest land animal?
I believe the Gazelle hold this title, not the Greyhound.

It depends, on whether or not you use averages or top speed. At Top speed Greyhounds are the second fastest, but on average it is some obscure type of antelope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.21.134 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Faster in sprint speed, top speed, and endurance, than the Greyhound is the pronghorn antelope - as well of course - as the cheetah.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Pronghorn speed is in excess of 20meters per sec "Running energetics in the pronghorn antelope". Lindstedt, S.L. et al, Nature 1991 (353)748-750. Cheetah speed is circa 29meters per sec "High speed locomotion: Insights from cheetahs and racing greyhounds" Hudson P. et al Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 153 (2009) S114–S133 Greyhound speed is circa 17meters per sec "Limits to running speed in dogs horses and humans" Denny, M. The Journal of Experimental Biology 2008 (211) 3836-3849. Please refrain from exaggerating Greyhound speed.


 * I dont have access to the article by Denny but simple investigation suggests he is either not measuring top speed, measuring over long distances (for a greyhound that is anything over 50 metres) or that he is simply wrong. There is a mountain of evidence of greyhounds times over measured distances from the racing world which point to their top speed being nearer 20 m/s. Indeed just to qualify for open class spinting dog have to average close to 17 m/s for the entire race. Given that they a) run from a standing start b) have to negotiate bends and other dogs c) tend to slow noticably before the finish (finishing speeds have been accurately measured at 14-15 m/s at non sprint races) and d) run on a surface that is not ideally suited to top speed and yet still average close to 17m/s it is clear that their top speed is higher. As for claims that they are the second fastest land animal that is clearly silly. I have heard various claims with the only one that even bears examination is that they are the second fastest accelerating mammal over their ideal distance which is plausible but certainly not something that should be included without a very good source.--LiamE (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article now provides three "scientific" sources quoting an average speed measured over a given distance. Highest terminal velocity over a negligible (very short) distance will be higher circa (18/19msec?), that is however not how speeds are usually measured, such as those given of the cheetah and pronghorn. Previous conjectures with reference to the Greyhound, such as " ... speeds in excess of 70kmh ..." need documented, verifiable sources. If they exist in reliable form, please provide them. --Richard Hawkins (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The peak speed of anying is a momentary speed and not measured over distance. And by the way your use of the term "terminal velocity" completely out of context unless we are talking about dropping dogs from a significant height. Track records for greyhound racing tracks are freely available on the internet and many of those for sprint events easily exceed an average of 17 m/s over full race distance. Given that there is a standing start, acceleration period and bends to negotiate and that the surface is designed for traction in the corners not top speed (you ever tried running on sand?) it is patently clear that 17m/s is not the upper bound of greyhound pace no matter how many cites you can quote. The article now quotes three scientific articles that virtually no editors have access to and cannot therefore see what was actually written in them. In any case no ammount of scientific studies can dismiss empirical eveidence. You could for instance do a scientific study on 10,000 humans, have it peer reviewed and published and find that humans can run the 100 metres in about 11 seconds at best. Would that then supercede the epirical fact that a man has been timed a second and a half faster? Of course not. Peak speeds are not best sourced from the scientific world but from the vast quantities of empirical data in this case. A very quick look here at just the first two tracks gives race records well in excess of 17m/s and in the case of Jimmy Lollie's time of 16.02 seconds for 285 metres closer to 18m/s than 17m/s. Thus no matter how well cited 17m/s is, it is an underestimate. If a dog can average close to 18m/s including bends, non ideal surface and a standing start a greyhound's actual sprint pace can obviously exceed 18m/s. The cited 20m/s that the article previously had in the lead is obviously a better candidate as a correct figure for their top speed. --LiamE (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Peak speeds supply little comparative data of any real value in this context (pronghorn,cheetah, dog) - most fleas could move faster than a Greyhound over a negligible distance(!?) Most measured speeds in a biological context are measured over a given appreciable distance, 100,350,500,1000metres, and are thus "average" speeds. One of the fastest Greyhound times on record was run by Beef Cutlet, 1933, Blackpool: 500yards (457.2metres)in 26.13sec. That remains one of the fastest times, partly because of the exceptional individual, but also because the track was very special - it was straight, not oval. Average speed 17.5msec. Yes indeed, if you have them, please supply authentic verifiable speeds(comparative speeds in this context of "which animal is faster?"), not 'guesstimates' or the previous unverifiable exaggerations.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point. You don't measures an animals peak or sustained speed by looking at times over distance that include standing starts and bends but if the records for races including bends and a standing start approach 18m/s (which they obviously do as I only looked at 2 tracks and found a 17.8m/s race average) it is patently clear 17m/s is an underestimate of greyhounds pace. The previous cited source of nearly 20m/s going into the first bend was from the racing world and frankly stands scrutiny far better than the sources you have added that no one other than yourself has easy access too. Furthermore your find above re Beef Cutlet is very interesting. I dont have comparable 500yd track records for dogs of that period but it is certain that track records rarely stand for 10 years as breeding improves the quality of dogs year on year. As current records of similar distances on ovals tend to have speeds in the 16-17m/s range it is clear that that the cornering alone takes approximately 0.5-1.5m/s off there overall pace assuming that the dog from 1933 is as good as todays record holders, which is very unlikely, and considerably more if indeed it is not as fast as today's dogs. Given that race times exist that indicate average speeds close to 18m/s and that running bends takes perhaps 1.5 m/s off their pace and the standing start drags the average speed down further it is not only plausible but frankly almost unarguable that greyhounds approach 20m/s at peak and can sustain speeds well in excess of 18m/s for a couple of hundred metres or more once up to pace. And please, don't try and imply that I am making unverifiable exaggerations or guestimates. I am coming at this purely from an empirical point of view by looking at very acurately timed races and from the previously cited source which I have yet seen a single peice of evidence to discredit and much support. Finally I don't see what comparative speed have to do with this. This is an article about greyhounds, they only speed that matters is that of the greyhound. --LiamE (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay this is obvious OR but it just illustrates my point. A bit more digging and I found times for Beef Cutlet in 1932 and 1936 for 500 and 525 yards. The faster of these averaged 16.25 m/s, the other a little slower. Given that the same dog between those times managed 17.5m/s on a straight track over similar distance it can be deduced that running bends takes 1.25m/s from the overall pace of that dog. Given that modern dogs can average 17.8m/s for a race with bends one might expect them to average a little over 19m/s on a straight track. If the standing start were to be removed from the average time the average speed would of course rise further approaching the previously cited entry for nearly 20m/s. How did Denny and co work out how fast greyhounds can run? Were they looking at some old mutts down the park or something because it doesnt look like they were looking at modern race dogs. Given that dogs could run 17.5m/s over middle distance 75 years ago is it really a stretch to think dogs with far faster recorded times can run faster over sprint distances particularly if not restricted by a track? And just to show how far dogs have come on in 75 years I had a quick look at the race times for mine. Despite being a nothing special dog his times for 525 yards is seven tenths faster than Beef Cutlet, an exceptional dog from the 30's over the same distance. To put that in perspective had my dog been put against Beef Cutlet that day it would have won by 50 feet or so. And there is an even bigger gap between the pace of my dog and that of the track record holder of the track he set that time on than there is beween my dog and Beef Cutlet. --LiamE (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I must correct myself after yet more digging around. Greyhounds can not only approach 18m/s for a full race including standing start and bends but exceed it. This gives an overall average for the race of 18.17m/s. It has now gone from I think 17m/s is an underestimate to I know it is. Had this dog been afforded the chance of a run on a straight track as Beef Cutlet did I hazard a guess it would have been a tad faster than 17.5m/s. --LiamE (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the text reads "circa 17msec", note the heading "2nd fastest land animal", note "Yes indeed, if you have them, please supply authentic verifiable speeds..."--Richard Hawkins (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the verifiable average speeds for races have been shown to be in excess of 18m/s, actual sprint pace without running bends and including standing starts is unquestionably higher. Note at no point have I contended that it is the second fastest animal, merely that c.17m/s is factualy incorrect. I have already provided sources if you care to follow them. --LiamE (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect this track is straight judging by the course records and the record holders comparative times at other courses. Can anyone confirm this? --LiamE (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again after digging around I can confirm my suspicion. The Capalaba Qld track is indeed straight and also grass which removes two of the factors I had previously identified in lowering average race speed from greyhounds true pace in a straight line, that of running bends and sand being a non ideal surface for outright pace. Consequently records for this track more accurately reflect greyhounds true pace. Average win times are typically in excess of 18m/s for quarters with more than a 100 races and the list of fastest times for the track this year here shows 50 times giving average speeds between 18.38m/s and 18.79m/s. Ergo greyhounds can unquestionably sustain speeds in excess of 18m/s. --LiamE (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a lot better than the previous "... speeds in excess of 70kmh"--Richard Hawkins (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC) --Richard Hawkins (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly the fastest dog on that track over the last 5 years completed the race at an average pace of 67.74kmh (18.82m/s) and so was very likely to have been travelling in excess of 70kmh (19.44m/s) for a significant portiion of the race. Without something like published data from radar speed traps at circuits or split times from known distances that of course would be hard to prove difinatively. To the best of my knowledge no such data is available though. --LiamE (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be possible, I've timed Greyhounds (that were running 350m at 19.75sec = 17.7msec) on short measured stretches in the starting straight of an oval, that's why I suggested the (18/19msec?) above.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Greyhound or greyhound?
A convention for many years in cynological literature is to name a "breed" of dog with upper case, to name a "type" of dog in lower case. For instance, Deerhound as opposed to deerhound. With reference to the English greyhound it would be better, i.e. more related to past history and the abundant reference material on the breed to name it: "Greyhound", when not using its region of origin. Other sighthound "breeds" have in the Anglophone tradition often been named "greyhounds" of their specifc region i.e. Spanish greyhound, Polish greyhound, Persian greyhound etc. Conversely other languages use a similar generic for sighthound(greyhound) such as lévrier, galgo, chrt etc. I would respectfully suggest that the first letter of Greyhound should be in upper case. That would promote clarity here & on other Wiki breed pages, and I believe it would be more consistent with historical use.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Handling advice
Twice now the following text has been removed:
 * As with all sighthounds, Greyhounds should never be allowed off-leash except within a completely fenced-in area. Their strong prey drive can lead them to chase all kinds of (particularly small) animals, and this can - and probably will - overrule any taught recall command.

Both myself, and the other editor that have removed it feel that it's subjective advice. While it does come from an adoption group, that hardly makes it objective. Can they point to studies that show that Greyhounds are more likely to bolt than other breeds? I agree with them that Greys should be on lead at all times, but in general I think we need to avoid allowing this article to become an adoption manual. It's a temptation with all the animal articles, but I feel it's a temptation that should be fought. --Ahc (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done another round of removing advice from this section. I was less harsh than I've been in the past, but some of the information is just wrong, some just inherently bias.  Really what this section needs is good copy editing, not more information. --Ahc (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also if this does get added again be sure to remove 'overrule any taught recall command'. With proper training the dog will look back at its owner for approval before chasing any other animal. Also, with proper training, the dog will not attack another dog. It is quite silly to keep a greyhound on a lead at all time, since they can't use extendable ones and they need to stretch out and run which a normal leash will not allow (unless you can find me a human who can run as fast as a greyhound). 88.109.31.235 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Realize it's anecdotal, but as a greyhound owner and member of an adoption group, it may be "subjective" but from experience I can tell you that most greyhounds, once going after a small running animal, will NOT respond to commands. Their prey instinct is strongly inbred.==JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.225.243 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two pennies :) I have two rescued Grey's, one is totally focus on all things round him, cats, small dogs, birds...., thus muzzled and on the lead at all times (while out and about). My second one does not give a penny about cats, small dogs and is thus not muzzled. I can have her even, off the lead walking next to me with a cat passing 2 feet away, not a problem. Its really dog depending. :) Scubafish (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Greyhound running" pic—not a Greyhound?
Look at the pic of the dog running that purports to be a greyhound, in the "Health and Physiology" section. That animal looks nothing like a greyhound. Greyhounds have a very distinct appearance while running. The dog depicted has legs and body that are too short and stocky, a tail that is too thick, a neck that is way too short, and coloring uncharacteristic of the breed, and in fact looks like a short-haired border collie more than anything. Who added that pic?

71.241.89.24 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say that it is a poor picture but it is certainly a greyhound. The picture adds nothing to the article though and the brindle picture above is a much better example of a greyhound on the move. I'd suggest removing that picture and moving the brindle picture down due to its poor quality rather than any questions over what breed it is. --LiamE (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Temperament (Ideal Apartment Dogs?)
I think this is an irresponsible statement. Also is purely one persons opinion. IMHO only "handbag" size breeds are even remotely suitable as apartment dogs. I have 2 medium size mixed (inc greyhound) breed dogs on 600m2 property and they still need a long run outside the property every day or they become extremely agitated and depressed. Others please comment, thanks. 211.31.46.33 (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Be mindful it's temperament, not size, that makes an "apartment dog". A Jack Rusell would most likely go spare in any apartment - but I've had an ex-racing Greyhound and a Rhodesian Ridgeback who could care less as long as they got their outings + royal treatment, even when they had 10 acres of farm + surrounding bush to roam. I'm a mere n=1. Nonetheless it is true that temperament is fairly predictable in regulated breeds. And Greyhounds do not have all the same needs as Labradors or Terriers or "handbag dogs". Or Rhodesian Ridgebacks for that matter. Smittee (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What they are.
they are so cool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.78.32 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

AKC vs NGA Greyhounds
I noticed that there is no differentiation between AKC and NGA Greyhounds. There are mentions of show/race bred dogs, but in general, all of the info seems to mostly be about NGA Greyhounds. I can't back this up with a source right now, but I believe that the AKC actually recognized them as different breeds, and they definitely have different appearance characteristics. For example, AKC Greyhounds are slightly lighter (males, 65-70 lbs, females, 60-65 lbs), have longer necks, and are a little more slender than the NGA Greyhounds. Should this be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarter55 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Live baiting
There's nothing about Live baiting here, where small animals are tied down, lured, and killed. And this is Greyhound racing, performance enhancing property, and is considered animal cruelty 182.255.99.214 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True; I think it more properly belongs in Greyhound racing, though. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Greyhound pic on Norwegian Wikipedia
This is really a fantastic picture of a running greyhound. Is it possible to pull this pic into the English greyhound article?

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Greyhound_running_brindle.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The page states the image is on Commons, so every project can already use it.  22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Video
We need a video of a greyhound running really, really fast. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
Recently an editor has made a number of blind reverts. These are unconstructive as they are adding multiple incidences of unreferenced opinion. Bizarrely the editor, who generally does not give an edit summary, claims this is because of ENGVAR. However it is unclear how such a policy supports the inclusion of unreferenced opinion. And for the record ENGVAR supports the use of 'British' English because of the early use of colour, see  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.198 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your own edits added unsourced opinion, and were in violation of WP:ENGVAR. Statistically, 99.9% of my nearly 18,000 edits here included an edit summary. No reverts were blind; they were merely an effort to restore a reasonable version of the article to a functional state and maintain higher quality writing, without unreferenced IP additions. Your concerns about unreferenced material should be addressed with the CN template.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your claimed statistics are irrelevant. What is relevant is your unconstructive edits. And to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your claims this is a blind edit without an edit summary: And please not try to confuse the issue with claims of unreferenced material when it has been you adding unrefenced content, and opinion. For the record and to demonstrate your claim of me adding unrefenced opinion is false, here is my edit:  This removed unreferenced opinion which you have repeatedly added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.198 (talk • contribs)
 * Both versions have unreferenced opinions here and there, which I have not just addressed. What I have just done is set the spelling of 'colour' back to the status quo, so there will hopefully be one less thing to edit war about. - MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit removed unreferenced opinion, it did not add. However, I would be interested in your rationale for changing to 'color' as the earliest version was 'colour': see link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.198 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In your diff both spelling variations are added in a single edit, so it does not establish any sort of precedence. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greyhound. 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/20030608115320/http://www.ankc.aust.com/greyhnd.html to http://www.ankc.aust.com/greyhnd.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050217025104/http://dogdomain.com/fcistandards/fci-158.htm to http://www.dogdomain.com/fcistandards/fci-158.htm

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) 05:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ban on owning grehounds in England
I believe that there was a ban on anyone owning grehounds (in England) unless they also owned land - on the basis that they were hunting dogs and you had no reason to have them if you did not own land on which to hunt. I read it in a history book recently and will try to dig it out for a reference... unless someone else gets there first. My reason for bringing this up is the changed perception of the grehound following the beginning of racing in the early 1900s. --Purple Aubergine 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a ban on owning Greyhounds in the UK but that was quite some time ago (can anyone pinpoint the exact date?) as they were supposed to be owned by "nobles" only. Nowadays they make fantastic companions (I should know as I have an adopted ex-racer) and are loved and cared for by their owners regardless as to whether the new owner has land. My Greyhound is extremely happy in his new life - I think the runs on the beach help! I believe the current perception of Greyhounds is shifting from purely hunting/racing to acceptance that they make wonderful companions as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'llgethim (talk • contribs)


 * In case anybody still cares or is wondering about this, the rule was effective in 1016. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The first legal impediment in British law to owning a Greyhound, hound or other dog for the purpose of hunting dates from 1389 None shall hunt but they which have sufficient living--Richard Hawkins (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Country of Origin
I am not exactly sure which perspective is used on the country of origin being England. When even the history at the bottom mentions it originated in Egypt as the Persian Greyhound. England is obviously incorrect, just using logic and the theory of evolution. I must protest why do greyhounds have a 3rd eyelid to keep the sand out, if in fact they were from England. I can see the point that the NAME came from England, but not the animal. The animal is from Africa. 128.119.21.134 (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This "breed" is a pedigree thoroughbred "English" breed, originating from private and public studbooks of the 18-19th Centuries in Britain. During the early Middle ages and later, hunting manuals (Phebus, etc.) demonstrate that the greyhound was an almost universal European variety or type of hunting dog. It is a popular myth that sighthounds/greyhounds originated in Egypt, for which there is absolutely no evidence. On the contrary the graphic evidence, and literature, suggests that the Sloughi/Saluki type was imported into Egypt (as was the horse) approx. 2000-1500BC (Jean Brixhe: 1996). Please note that all dogs have a third eyelid to protect their cornea. Literature (Arrian: circa 180) suggests that the earliest antecedant of the greyhound, the vertragus, as an imported European dog, originated with the Celts from Eurasia, (location, possibly related to the origin of horse riding?).--Richard Hawkins (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Greyhound is spanish (Europe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.50.217 (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

External link to "The Greyhound & the Hare"
I have reinstated the link to the publishing source of this book, the ultimate source on Greyhounds & coursing, which as I have previously stated has no ISBN (difficult to trace) being funded by the National Coursing Council, and is not a commercial ploy nor an advertisement. There are reputedly 1000 examples of this expensive and very large book, likely now all sold, very few of which will be in any library. So please leave the informative source link intact, thank you.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal as WP:LINKSPAM. We're not here to promote books or their publishers. If there's missing information about the reference, add it as metadata, not a link. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not promotional as explained above, it's neither spam nor commercial. It provides relevant information on the breed as well as on an absolutely unique book on the breed. The simultaneous removal of the Waterloo video short appears to be symptomatic of editorial heavy-handedness not to speak of short-sightedness.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal of both links from prose. YouTube video might be ok under external links, mention of book too but not a link to publishers sale page Lyndaship (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of both links - 'YouTube video might be ok'? I wonder if this sort of editorial policing might not be getting out of hand :-) That video is a school-book example of non-commercial information concerning the breed, the sport it created, and the demise of a specific type along with the sport. I'm here to provide information, not get involved in trivial editorial fights :-)--Richard Hawkins (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be ok, but then took a brief look and concluded that it didn't belong in this article.
 * WP:ELBURDEN exists because we want editors to focus on creating content within Wikipedia, not linking to others' content. Creating "trivial editorial fights" is a waste of all our time. That's why the burden is placed on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I really am surprised! Please take the time to explain why, of all things, that 7 minute video "The last Waterloo Cup" is inappropriate to this page.
 * Sorry, but the burden is on you. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you censored a video link with no explanation whatsoever, the burden is yours. Exit editorial integrity.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear:
 * ELBURDEN places the burden on those seeking inclusion.
 * WP:YOUTUBE cautions about such links.
 * External_links/Perennial_websites cautions about such links.
 * The link was added as if it were a citation. I'm assuming it is not a citation. As such, it doesn't belong.
 * The copyright for the video is not included and is unclear.
 * The video quality is poor.
 * The subject matter is tangential to the topic of this article, greyhounds.
 * The video is lengthy for what little information it contains that could be considered meeting EL qualifications.
 * The video has content that might be considered undue as it relates to the topics of greyhounds and hare coursing.
 * A brief, high-quality video, with clear copyrights that are not being violated, demonstrating greyhound hare coursing might be appropriate for inclusion in the External links section of Hare Coursing. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain. The last four reasons given are simply wrong: quality is ok, subject matter is totally appropriate, informative, certainly not 'undue'(!). Let's agree to differ - strength to you, you have an awful lot of work to do.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Further Reading "The Greyhound & the Hare
Please leave this reference standing. It is the ultimate source. It has nothing to do with spam--Richard Hawkins (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks like spam, and promoting it as you are doing has made it seem more like spam each time you work on it.
 * You removed it from an in-line citation to Further reading. That means it is not a reference. Doing so after the previous discussion makes it appear you just want to highlight it, and are unconcerned with actually using it as a reference. That's the definition of promotion, and it's a policy violation. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As an inline link which went to the publishers website I felt it was spam too but I don't have a problem with it being listed as further reading. Of course if it is the ultimate source of much in the article it should be used as a reference and then there would be no problem having it cited. Do you have the book Richard? Lyndaship (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This reference is fine as further reading and as a historical perspective. Not sure how this source on historical perspective is spam or what the proof for this accusation is.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC))
 * COI and promotion aside, is it a reliable source, being self-published? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see proof for COI and promotion in this source or this kind of source. What is being promoted? As I said I believe the source is fine as Further Reading per, "Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation."; investigating this as a reliable source would take more research and I don't have the book or much publisher information to carry on that research. COI is a serious accusation and I don't see proof for it so would likely leave that out of the discussion. If you have such proof it should be added to the discussion?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC))
 * I don't think that it needs to be taken to COIN until he's responded on his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have the book. I'm in the process of re-reading it. Apparently financed by the National Coursing Council, written by the long time secretary to the NCC Charles Blanning, produced/published(?) by YPD, and in all the time I have been "promoting" accurate historical information on sighthounds, it is without a doubt the most significant and authentic/reliable history of a single breed and its sport. I hope that at the very least it will be acquired by some major libraries (it's expensive) and that other readers will find it in time and value it as an outstanding work of history. Thank you --Richard Hawkins (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the COI?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC))
 * Being an expert or knowledgeable in an area should not be confused with a COI. We need experts and have a bad habit of chasing them away(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC))
 * OK.I can't see that this book is not a reliable source. Breed experts and national and international breed associations often write about the breed they are expert in; this is in my opinion are most reliable of sources on a breed. Generally, breed experts are aware of both the positive and negative aspects of the breed. I'm mystified as to what the COI is here or why the source is not reliable. If your language is deemed inflated somewhat by another editor you might try rewriting but the source seems fine to me unless I missing something.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC))
 * I think the book as further reading of quite okay. Even used as references too.  My initial concern was not about the book, but a link to where you can buy it.  Aoziwe (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand. That link was to help, because there is no ISBN, and to provide access to content of the book which I had not personally endorsed or written. The book is in (yes) my opinion, the best thing that has been written on the subject(s). 500 pages plus, brilliant illustrations, photos and artwork, meticulously written history. Just occasionally something brilliant comes out of this generally poor world of canine literature. --Richard Hawkins (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC) --Richard Hawkins (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Proverbs link
Proverbs 30:31 doesn't identify the greyhound, as far as I can tell. The word translated in many translations as "greyhound" is the Hebrew word "zarzir". That just means a creature full of energy (from "zariz", meaning energetic). Sure, it could be a greyhound. Or it could be a horse. Or it could be a cheetah. We don't know. -- Dreamer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.6 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The King James version uses the word "greyhound" in it's translation. ---JR


 * Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Spelling
Changed spelling of analyses; to analysis. --87.112.22.146 10:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the change? There are two different sources cited, surely the plural analyses is correct?


 * Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Welfare
I have removed the section under the heading Welfare, there is already a section covering the health of the greyhound. The section inserted here on Welfare was clearly done so by someone on a political agenda against greyhound racing and coursing. This type of unreferenced, unprovable political statement has no place in this article. User:jaquesdemolay92


 * Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Origin
This genetic study indicates that the greyhound originated in region occupied by the Celts. This indicates that the origin is central Europe. Thouhts? War (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about the English Greyhound - refer second sentence of the article which you appear to have missed. Its WP:COMMONNAME is Greyhound. Across the English-speaking world, when they talk about a greyhound, they are referring to this dog, and this is the English-speaking Wikipedia. Its breed standard appears in the infobox. This dog was bred into a breed with its own breed standard in Britain - this article is largely based on that breed standard, refer the FCI breed standard in the infobox and the British origin. Although the History section is interesting, that is not what this article is largely about. If you wish, you might propose a split of the article into both the "English greyhound" and the "History of the greyhound type". I doubt you will gain much support, but I encourage you to apply.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 08:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting point of view. I'm not an expert and choose not to do WP:OR, but I bet the greyhound pre-dates the breed classification system. We must be careful not to engage it revisionist history.War (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly a large contributor to the English greyhound was the historical greyhound that you mention, whose history is believed to date back thousands of years. However, it may not look nor perform exactly similar to the modern English greyhound. The dog's wolf-ancestor does not look similar to today's dogs, but that is who they came from.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 08:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All sighthound breeds clearly descend from a common ancestor, but I agree with William Harris this is an article about a British development. Cavalryman (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC).