Talk:Rottweiler/Archive 1

first discussion
Nobody calls Rottweilers Rocs or Rochesters, so I deleted those dumb nicknames. ANyone who does is retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not very neutral to say that a "well trained and responsive 'Rottie' is a great pet...", or that the bad press Rottweilers have received is unfortunate. Guanaco 03:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree this is a pretty biased article which conveys about what the author feels are good things about the rottweiler. While I am not disputing that I have to say Wikipedia aims to have a neutral attitude and for that the article definately should be edited


 * Those are minor changes that you could have made! :-) I'll clear those out.  Elf | Talk 04:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that nicknames should stay nicknames oviously who ever wrote those nicknames calls rotties that so don't say no one call sthem that cause it is not true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottweiler lover (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I believe that both of those statements are fairly neutral. The 1st is a fact... a well-trained responsive Rottweiler IS a great pet. In regards to the 2nd, the bad press is unfortunate... the Rottweiler population in North America currently numbers between 350,000 - 400,000 animals (est.). Given that population size, the number of negative incidents is certainly not at all excessive (i.e. the breed is not predisposed to violence against humans). Furthermore, would it be too bold to suggest that we humans are a far worse 'breed' than Rottweilers? We are certainly more likely to hurt or kill each other... :)


 * "...makes a great pet...", well, we don't know what kind of pet someone would want or could manage given their lifestyle. There are many people & families for whom a Rottweiler will never make a good pet no matter how well it's trained.  So you could say that  "a well-trained and responsive Rottie is a better pet than an untrained and unresponsive Rottie" (although one might argue that "better" is POV in some ways...) but saying it's a great pet is not a fact.
 * "...is unfortunate...", well, if someone believes that it's a good thing that people don't get Rotties unless they really know what they're doing, then them getting bad press is a good thing. So you could say that "Rotties have received bad press." But whether it's fortunate or unfortunate is in the eye of the beholder.  Elf | Talk 22:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

War dogs?!
There are several references in this article that claim that Rottweilers were 'war dogs'. Hmmmm... perhaps. But the bit about them being formed into dog-only platoons to attack the enemy sounds a little far-fetched. Did flying pigs airlift them into battle?! I think someone should find a reliable source for this info or delete.
 * Actually there have been many instances of war dogs in this form - see war_dog, and perhaps check next time before you scornfully post, as this is perfectly plausible. Ecth (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What a crock! The article war_dog specifically states rottweiler-type dogs. Since the breed didn't even exist back then and there is no clear classification for a 'rottweiler-type' dog, this kind of statement does not belong in any decent online encyclopedia. It deserves to be rebuked scornfully! It sounds like you wish to push a negative stereotype about the breed. You must be sick of all the lazy Mexicans? Tight-fisted Jews? Chinese people beating you in math competitions?! I'm being sarcastic BTW, just in case it has gone over your pointy head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.25.131 (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read that Roman Legions used Rottweilers with armor and spiked collars as support role, so this is a true statement. The Rotts, since they are a fast dog, would be great at distracting the adversary while the Legions attacked College Watch (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, where did you read this? If you have a source, then just provide it. The quickstart manual for 'ROME: Total War' doesn't really count as a source, BTW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.26.197 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not Rottweilers
DOGS AND NATIONAL DEFENSE Anna M. Waller 1958 Department of the Army Office of the Quartermaster General Study on the history of War Dog training and utilization during and after World War II. (Page 8)
 * In 1942 and 1943, when practically all of the dogs were trained to perform the comparatively simple tasks involved in sentry duty more than thirty breeds of both sexes were considered suitable for military service. Experience revealed, however, that even for sentry duty some breeds were unsatisfactory. Among these were Great Danes, whose large size made them difficult to train, and hunting breeds in general because they were too easily diverted by animal scents. By the fail of 1944 the number of preferred breeds had been reduced to seven, German Shepherds, Belgian sheep dogs,, Doberman-Pinschers, farm collies, Siberian huskies, Malamutes and Eskimo dogs. Crosses of these breeds also were acceptable.

According the the The United States War Dogs Association, Inc. a nonprofit organization of former and current US Military Dog Handlers and others:
 * Once knowledge and experience was gained the dogs of choice became the German Shepherd Dog and the Doberman. Due to the nature of work to be accomplished the Labrador eventually replaced the Doberman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.80.50 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Rottweiler-caused deaths
I didn't revert the deletion of the note about the deaths caused by Rottweilers because I don't understand the signifcance of it. For example, according to this survey, 39 deaths were caused by Rottweilers in the U.S. between 1979 and 1999. What makes these noteworthy? Elf | Talk 02:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * yes, that's a good point. I think the section can be improved to give a better understanding of the issues - those would be useful as examples of the press given to Rottie attacks, and the information in your source would be very useful in demonstrating that they are high on the list of dogs most likely to cause deaths.  In my experience some of the smaller breeds are much more prone to aggression than Rotties, but if one of those attacks they are not as likely to be able to kill.  It's the combination of strength and occasional aggression that is particularly problematic (that said, I love the breed and they are, in my experience, usually lovely characters).  My concern is to ensure that we acknowledge both sides of the debate and don't leave out negative information in the name of NPOV -- sannse (talk) 21:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted last two comments. Let me remind potential posters that Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussion pages are for discussing the article with which they are associated. i.e. Please discuss Wikipedia's article on Rottweilers here, not your own Rottweiler.

Objective Assessment
The following was taken from the UK kennel Club Website, and i feel gives a fair description of a well treated Rottie; Temperament Good natured, not nervous, aggressive or vicious; courageous, biddable, with natural guarding instincts.

Characteristics Appearance displays boldness and courage. Self-assured and fearless. Calm gaze should indicate good humour.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/59

(new wiki user) I think it is very important to note the danger these animals pose to the general public, in particular children. Yes, any dog can attack, however it is the scale and ferocity that makes this noteworthy. Blaming bad owners is fine, but doesn't change the speed with which a rottweiler can cause serious damage. In the UK, a rottweiler is the most lethal weapon it is legal for most people to own and take with them as pedestrians. Sorry if this comment is in the wrong place.

Regardless of this, the author of this article is clearly biased toward Rottweilers and it is not objective. Compare it with, for example, Wikipedia's far more balanced article on the Pit Bull, which mentions Rottweilers as being the second most dangerous breed of dog, without accounting for the fact that many victoms mistakenly identify Rottweilers as Pit Bulls.

Should it be 19th century? : "However, by the end of the 18th Century the breed had declined so much that in 1900 there was only one female to be found in the town of Rottweil."


 * 1) There are typically many authors of each article; it all depends on who has info and the time to add to the article (hint hint). 2) Yup, probably shd be 19th cent.  Elf | Talk 7 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

I think this article needs to be more objetive, as it almost forgets that this is a dangereous breed. Even in the German Shepherd Dog  (which is not considered as dangereous as the Rottweiler) article it says that unproperly trained dogs can be agressive, and if it is the same with Rottweilers, it should be noted that Rottweilers can be unproperly trained easier than other dogs. It should be noted that I know nothing about dogs, I just know that I'm worried about the Rottweiler that my front neighbour has, which barks horribly at anyone that walks in front the house (this also makes me less objetive about this kind of dog). I'm also sorry about my ortography as English is not my firs language. Thank you very much. Nicanor5

This article seems to focus too much on trying to repair the reputation of the rottweiler breed. A Wikipedia article should not be a soap box upon which a person tries to push their opinion.

re: objectivity. From 1991-1999 an average of 20-30,000 rottweilers were registered per year, 41,776 in 1999 alone (akc.org). The percentage of rottweilers who bite as a percentage of total population is actually extremely low.

True. See discussion in dog attacks on exactly this topic. Elf &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:Elf&#124;Talk]] 21:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article does seem a little biased, but I cannot think how to change it without expressing objective opinion on the other side. Ecth (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The kennel club description isn't biased it is merely stating the characteristics the dog must posses to be used as a show dog. They are a list of characteristics that define the way a rottweiler of good breeding and training should be. So they aren't really biased. Merely stating the ideal.

Also stating discussing the rottweilers aggression to say that in the vast majority of cases aggression in the breed is due to poor handling,socialisation,training etc isn't biased it is fact. No dogs are particularly prone to human aggression it is a learned trait.

Lastly to say negative media is unfortunate... Perhaps a better statement would be negative media is seen by some as unfortunate as it has led to many laws which some would argue as unfair or unnecessary being attached to the breed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.59 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't the Rottweiler trained to attack due to neglectful owners? I have heard they are abused and some bite a lot. Well, I think the reason why the Rottie has gotten a bad name is because of they are used in illegal underground dog fighting rings (I am not kidding), severe cases of biting (where they injure or even kill a person), or a poor owner/trainer. I know for a fact that Rotties are actually good dogs that weren't trained to attack, but for caring for people and the owners.--VelairWight 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between dogs who are trained to attack--which is a deliberate effort by a human--and dogs whose genes make them inclined to attack--which is under much debate. It looks as if you're using "trained to attack" to mean "inclined to attack", although I'm not sure. Certainly if a dog is deliberately trained to attack, that's not a neglectful owner; that's an (IMHO) irresponsible owner deliberately doing the wrong thing. I think, if I understand what you're saying, that the article already says basically the same thing; they're historically good dogs that some people have misused.  Elf | Talk 17:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Rottweilers can make loving pets, as mentioned in the main article. Any large dog could attack if poorly trained. Alsations also seem to be labeled dangerous, which isn't allways true, i know several people who own alsations on my housing estate, and they're only a danger to intruders. Sticking an untrained Rottwieler into your back garden to scare of theives is a bad idea, one case in the town Washington, Tyne and Wear U.K. near to where i live, the rottwieler was so good natured, he allowed himself to be led away by a theif. The truth is, most dogs will attack if baited, but the dogs i notice are the most agressive is small dogs, such as Terriers and Jack Russels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.51.27 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that this is a GREAT and extremely fair article on the Rottweiler breed. As an experienced and responsible dog owner of many breeds, the Rottweiler has an unjust reputation all over the globe. As with any breed, the behavoir of the dog is nearly 100% dependent upon the owners and their ability to raise dogs properly. Rottweilers, Pitt Bulls, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinchers and other "aggressive breeds" are only consider as such because of the severity of their bites and their "macho" status. All breeds bite, however, some are so small or weak that their bites are insignifant and, therefore do not suffer bad publicity. This article is completely unbiased. Including "bad points" on this breed would create a bias. There is nothing inherently bad about any breed which causes the "bad points" or "good points" to not be facts, but bias and hearsay. I applaude this article for helping educate those that are unfamiliar with Rottweilers.


 * Though I'm sure you right about the fact that all breeds bite, you said yourself that Rottweilers have more "bad publicity" because they're bites are more dangerous than those of smaller, weaker breeds. That basically means that yes, they do in fact pose more of a danger than, say, a chihuahua. Supposing all dogs bite the exact same amount, or heck, that the weaker breeds with the insignificant bites attack MORE often, Rottweilers would in fact still pose a much greater danger. And I'm sure it's true that the behavior of any given breed of dog is largely dependant on the owner, but in that case, a Rottweiler with an irresponsible owner is still more dangerous than a chihuahua with an irresponsible owner. I'll admit that I don't know much about dogs in general, and maybe some of their notoriety is a bit exaggerated, the same way the movie Jaws stigmatized sharks. But while I feel sharks have an unfounded "HOLY CRAP RUN" connotation, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's "unbiased" to point out in the shark article that sharks have been known to attack people. --Foot Dragoon 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

==

Can this be temporarily locked? after the baby was recently savaged, there is going to be a lot of bad press and the normal shouting match. whatever the result, it should not be CONDUCTED on the article page.

External link request
For example I have edited the history part of the rottweiler article which his very important for any people concerned with this breed. As a breeder, I regularly participate to the big rottweiler shows ( Klubsieger, Bundensieger, Europasieger, Deutchmeisterschaft ...) and I keep up with all the current information related to those events and the rottweiler topic. In conclusion, I'm asking for two things :

- contribute to the article as an editor ( I have already started to write some information )

Best Regards Lutfiye Oztel

Oztbrott 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your contributions would be welcome, no need to ask for pemission. "Anyone can edit". See Introduction for some editing guidelines (for example, edits to the articles are not signed). This won't, however, entitle you in any way to "get a link". I don't see anything on your site that would make it an appropriate external link for this article. Femto 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers.

First of all, I would like to develop this article by appending information related to the rottweiler since the ADRK was created.

Spreading the European news to other continents is also one of our objectives ...

Our breeders participate to nearly all big rottweiler shows occuring in Europe. As a result we obtained a huge collection of rottweiler pictures. This whole represents an essential source of information for anyone interested about the rottweiler. Collecting the most current information and offering it was our primary goal when we created this site.

One can obtain the right to copy our pictures by asking for permission : a truly little effort !

By being a true visual information source, we think that our website qualify for Wikipedia free encyclopedia.

Oztbrott 22:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several freely licensed images available from the Wikimedia Commons repository commons:Rottweiler to which you are invited to contribute, so there is no need to link to external galleries. Femto 11:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is probably a misunderstanding ; Your gallery isn't a real view of the breedind of the rottweiler. I have already around 200 Mo of photos concerning one part of the best rottweilers in the world. You have change the external link ; why ? Do you think that all this links give information about rottweilers ? I think you have to do link towards websites representative of the rottweiler. My gallery isn't only photos, there is very important information like parents, which give information about the genealogy. I do a request to do a link towards site like the american rottweiler club and the ADRK ( German rottweiler club) and mine, All this websites give information and are here to promote the rottweiler. I hope you will understand my request.


 * It simply isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to collect links to sites such as yours. Besides, I have my doubts that your homepage is of similar notability as those of national breeder associations, and it's already a stretch to assume the external links section should be a listing of them. It will suffice for the goals of this encyclopedia to refer to an open directory which provides those links. Femto 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, why don't you do this for all the subjects in wikipedia ? If I understand wikipedia's goal is to explain a subject. Do you think the Open directory explain or show something to the readers? Lot of websites has informations for people who wants informations but the open directory's goal isn't to give information.
 * Links to specific webpages (webpages, not websites) with extensive specific information, for example on the history of rottweilers, may be appropriate, until Wikipedia's article improves beyond it. Endorsed by some other editor, not only by the owner of that site, and preferably from a site with no commercial interests. Indiscriminate collections of links to club's or breeder's websites with no immediate information, on the other hand, are not appropriate. Half of your club links aren't even in English. Those websites, as well as dozens others, with all their information, are available through the directory link. Wikipedia's goal is to give information, not to direct to it. A directory's goal isn't to give information, but to direct to it. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Glad we straightened that out. Femto 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the post about Jews/Blacks made by the amazing Racist.. As this had nothing with the subject article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber Shinobi (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to article
Hi, EinsteinEdits. I see you recently added a couple of bits to the article. One is redundant; the first sentence in the "Temperament" section makes it clear that Rottweilers can be loving comapnions, so there's no need to repeat that. The other is a note that you can find ttack stories about any dog. This may be true, although I'm not personally aware of many people savagely mauled by Chihuahuas or Teacup Poodles. But regardless, as written it suggests that Rottweilers are no more dangerous than other dogs. If that's true, which runs counter to the rest of the article describing them as war dogs, you'll need some citations for that. On Wikipedia we don't print our own opinions, but only opinions that that can be verified to come from reliable sources. William Pietri 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

EinsteinEdits aka Proffessor of Life Incase you are unaware you do not own wikipedia, nor are you an admin. It is not up to your judgement to threaten, or abuse wikipedia terms.

William there are more poodle attacks in this country and rottie attacks and it is unfair to aim the article at the concept off rottie attacks. to be fair you would need to go through every single breed on here and list examples of noted attacks int he media and let people know that any dog can attack. Instead I chose to modify this page and let people know that any dog is capable of attacking and it has Nothing to do witht his particular breed, which is simply the truth it needs to be modified --Edited By a Professor of Life 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps smaller dogs can be as aggressive as Rottweilers, but they are incapable of killing children. As someone who was badly bitten by a Rottweiler "family pet" as a child (the owners never mistreated her and she knew me from previous visits), I can personally testify to their violent tendencies. To eliminate all mention of this risks neglecting this aspect of the breed's notorious behaviour. I don't think ignorance makes good owners of pets. It's up to the reader to decide with the evidence provided in this relatively well-balanced article. If I wanted to impose my opinion, it would probably read "shoot the damned things"!--Littlebig 09:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is by any means aimed at it. The section is way down in the article, and it clearly says that this is a media phenomenon and due to bad owners rather than bad dogs. It doesn't say much at all about the actual temperament of the dogs other than describing a friendly, clownish attitude. Given that, I think it's pretty fair, and possibly more than fair. It's undeniable that, whatever the truth of the matter, there is a widely shared perception that Rottweilers are more dangerous than, say, poodles, and that's all this section really talks about. If you have citations from reliable sources that have evidence on the dog's temperament, don't hesitate to add them. But please don't add more uncited material; this article has plenty already. Note that the the threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Thanks, William Pietri 05:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog3.pdf --Edited By a Professor of Life 22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're starting to look for references, but there were three issues with your edit. First, you reverted somebody else's wikilink. Section, that article says nothing about what dogs make loving companions. And third, the article says nothing at all about Rottweilers, and thus can't prove anything about their temperament. Perhaps you could find some research on Rottweilers? The article would be a good source for some of other breeds mentioned, though. Why don't you look at adding it on those articles? William Pietri 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that I would like to add is simply the fact that all dogs are capable of attacking. And yes, a small dog can kill a child. http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/2001/LA9212001pomeranian.pdf A pomeranian killed a 6-week old infant while the caretaker went to warm a bottle for just a few minutes. As stated before, this is not a discussion board so I won't go on about my 2 year old Rott who happens to be a big hit at a local school for mentally and physically disabled children (she's a therapy dog), but it would be greatly appreciated if before posts are made, research would be done. This article is reasonably fair and presents an accurate description of temperment.

Medium-large?
Isn't it safe to say that Rottweilers are large dogs? I mean, I realize that there are larger dogs, but still, I Rottweilers are rather large, and I think it's simply misleading to call them medium-large. --D. Webb 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not safe to say that Rottweilers are large dogs, as a BREED. Poorly bred Rottweilers may be large, but if you do a check on the standard of the Rottweiler, you will find that it is a medium breed. There are many breeds larger than the Rottweiler. --T.R. Young 65.127.126.130 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that it is an medium to large breed. The rottweiler is a very compact dog for it strength. The average Rottweiler, by U.S. standards are about 85-90 lbs. College Watch (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting??
Since im new, i dont know how to do this, but it might be good to have the keywords [Rottie, Rotty, and Rott] as redirections to the main page...if that makes sense

x_C.H. 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok so i added one to the Rott disambiguation page, but the other ones can still be used. x_C.H. 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks for the help ;-) x_C.H. 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman History
This is a little fantastic. Is there a Latin source? Pliny the Elder had a tale of dogs carrying carts of treasure, but this was in Asia Minor. The claim that the Rottweiler is one of the ancient dog breeds needs to be substantiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legis Nuntius (talk • contribs) 04:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Misleading
I think it's pretty damn misleading to say things like "never leave your child alone with ANY animal" after talking about Rotweiler's killing children. I've NEVER heard about a golden retriever, even the most abused, beat up mistreated golden retriever, killing babies in their sleep. Have you? Let's be honest. It's not EVERY animal that you need to be genuinely worried about. 74.115.188.212 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Jordan


 * Ahem:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.55.81 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah? then leave your baby with as many dogs as you can. Darwin will do his work.

All dogs are created with the potential to harm, but some have more potential than others. <-- shameless Animal Farm ripoff. LochNessDonkey 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * heh, that's a good quote. "You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed.  And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight, You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking."-- Pink Floyd, "Dogs" Legis Nuntius 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What is misleading is the overwhelming number of Rottweiler attacks (or any dog attack, for that matter) that do not give proper attention to the factors involved in the attack. There are usually 3 main factors involved in a dog attack, and minor factors can be pulled from them. They are the following:

1.) Poor Breeding - The mating of dogs that have poor bloodlines and/or physical and/or mental ailments that can be passed on to a new generation of the breed.

2.) Being tied out - Tieing a dog out CAN result in the dog becoming aggressive due to it's natural want to be a part of a 'pack'.

3.) Lack of training and/or socialization - Dogs such as Rottweilers that are strong physically as well as mentally that are not properly trained will 'train' themselves. Left unchecked, their strength can be lethal.  When properly trained and socialized, any dog can learn to limit it's strength during play or trial periods.

If a responsible owner purchases a dog of reputable breeding and proceeds to train and socialize the dog and make it a part of the family, the potential for an attack plummets. The responsible owner will also not allow any dog to remain unsupervised with young children. The responsible owner will provide their dog with a proper kennel, if not permitted to live indoors with the family unit.

Poor breeding, in and of itself, is a major contributor to dog attacks. Popular breeds like the Rottweiler are being bred by Back Yard Breeders (BYBs) and puppy mills simply so that someone can turn a quick profit. These dogs aren't properly health certified, nor do they have quality lineage to help pass on good traits. They are typically physically deficient with poor hearts and eyes, they pass on dysplaisa and other joint defects, and can be mentally unstable due to inbreeding. A Code of Ethics (COE) breeder will not allow the above mentioned poor breeding to happen. Their prices are typically higer than a BYB or a puppy mill, but a quality dog is the end result. Also, a COE breeder would never allow one of their pups to go to a home where the pup would not be trained or socialized properly, and a contract is typically written so that if there is any reason that the buyer can not continue to care for the dog, it will be returned to the breeder. A reputable breeder's pups should NEVER end up in a shelter or pound.

NO dog should EVER be left alone with a child. Golden Retriever or not. I was attacked by a golden once. Breed plays no role. With the right circumstances, ANY dog regardless of breed could attack a baby or child. Go ahead and leave a dog alone with your kid. See how that turns out.... 76.177.56.8 00:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, with the sratement No animal should be left alone with a child, because 1: a fish in a tank can do no harm without help from an irresponsible child.I also think that some dogs can be allowed wwith children I mean come on, a chiuaua with a 5 year old,the 5 year old owns the chiuaua, WHAT CAN GO WRONG even if the dog were to become evil, It is like somthing this size 1 vs somthing this size 1Superscript text and then one can say the chiuaua may get the boys neck, but then you can say being in a house is dangerous because it could fall down, I mean Jeez, i left a german shepherd with kids, they loved him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.241.222 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A dog is still an animal, whatever the breed. Every animal, humans included, will respond with aggression if the situation demands it of them - when they feel threatened, intimidated or pushed beyond a reasonable limit. As a 'responsible' owner, whatever the breed, the owner inculcates a sense of security which kinda pushes these limits for the animal. It is unfair to focus on a few instances when the dog responded with aggression without first trying to establish the reasons for the aggression - was the dog threatened, was he trained to respond with aggression in some situations, was aggression an acceptable response from the dog up to that point etc..

Children tend to forget that unlike their parents, some people don't accept unreasonable behavior from them. So is it unreasonable to say that a dog, regardless of the breed, may respond with some aggression if a child unknowingly hurts her? I can confidently say that no matter what the breed, every dog has the potential to act unpredictably / with violence. Pretty much the same as humans... Cahira (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

>>>>>>>i see her point or his, but i think the comment is misleading i mean you could then say that about every enimal on wikipedia and every human named, just get over it it is a slightly misleading and unkind comment in my eyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.133.79 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I Understand evry point of view here but please tell me why this is written, if so you can say that leaving anyone in a room with any animal is dangerous, and that even standing in a house is dangerous because if you are stupid enough to set it on fire you will die, the provoked comment is true, but then all you do is dangerous, because if the person who wrote it smashed the keyboard too hard then it may break and cut her, so it is lethal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.81.8 (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, an encyclopaedia provides information with a proper citation of the work supporting its facts. It is not, however, a guide to child/dog rearing or a forum for painting blanket assumptions pushed by an Media that thrives on promoting paranoia about the safety of your children. The article should discuss that the breed has been the subject of bad press, and also give the rebuttal that while any animal has the capacity for aggression, perhaps more attention will paid to the ones that can actually show you who's boss.

"I've NEVER heard about a golden retriever, even the most abused, beat up mistreated golden retriever, killing babies in their sleep."

Docking comment
I just wanted to add my 2 bits (I have edited as well) that docking is not illegal in "The European Union" - rather there was an EU treaty that called for its banning, but many countries did not sign up to it.

Bassclef 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's so cruel to dock animals - how would you like it if someone cut off YOUR genitalia? I also wonder if the population of docked animals is in threat, how do they reproduce??


 * Depending on how you do it, it is not cruel at all. My breeder (I actually held my younger Rott when he did it) simply ties a bit of elastic around their tail at three days of age. They don't even squeak and the tail falls off in a couple of days. The dew claws are another matter, but most breeds have those removed, not just Rottweilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you would need references instead of personal experience. The Dog Trust in UK thinks docking is cruel, the RSPCA Australia thinks it is "a painful and totally unnecessary tradition" I'm sure there are other references with similar point of view, as well as some who share your point of view. I think that a dog's tail is a similar structure to a human finger - with bone structure and muscles - so this would be equivalent to tying a rubber band around your finger and waiting until it fell off - which I'm sure it would. Without knowing the phsyiological impact on the animal, one can only speculate, but since this procedure is done for cosmetic, not veterinary, reasons, I think it has an additional burden to have a minimal impact on the animal.Bob98133 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, whether you think it is cruel or not is not the issue here, this is an encyclopedia, not a porn site for animal rights. Second, my, or any other animal's sex organs, has nothing to do with whether or not we remove the tails or ears from certain dogs. Third, docking has nothing to do with reproduction, as it is the removal of most of the tail or ears, and dogs don't use their tails or ears for sex. Fourth, I suspect that you are confusing docking with neutering. If this is the case, I would encourage you to read the article on neutering, as it holds a wealth of information as to the advantages of neutering. A simple Google search on the topic, or perusing the SPCA web site will provide similar information. Fifth, I'm pretty certain that animals commonly neutered are in no danger of vanishing due to lack of ability to reproduce. I reach this conclusion largely based upon the fact that on of the most common motivations for animal sterilization is the desire to reduce the ridiculous numbers of unwanted animals that come as a result of undesired accidental impregnation of animals, particularly cats. Sixth, please sign your posts. NihilisticMystic 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

listings of dog attacks?
Most people who get bit by Rottweilers are assholes that deserved it anyways.

I edited out two of the three listings of dog attacks in the press. While one example can serve as a cautionary warning, placing three in a row makes it look welcoming for everyone to put their anecdotal story or local television dog attack on the page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it seemed outside of it's scope to include these listings.

Jlmerrell 01:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most people who get bit by Rottweilers are assholes that deserved it anyways. It would be wise to restrain from using this kind of language. It's insulting, it's not true, and as people recognize it as such, it won't help you with this or any other cause. In addition people will get the idea, that perhaps you are an example of the type, who can't control their dogs.


 * In any case, I was similarly amazed to see such a listing. Do we see a hysterical death count elsewhere in Wikipedia? Listings of Toyota crash kills in Toyota article? Listings of U.S. Army kills in Iraq in Iraq article? Listings of knife attacks in Knife article? If such a listing remains here some people might be tempted to start making such listings. And where would Wikipedia be then? --Ukas 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I completly agree so what there have been attacks does not mean that we should list them and how does what he said give that type of impression, i thought it was a fair opinion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.241.222 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rottweiler heroes
I added a new part "Rottweiler heroes" with a true story how Rottweiler Aku was selected to be a police of the year in Finland. I'm sure there will be more examples. --Ukas 23:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little surprised to see you add such a section despite your objections to the Rottweiler attacks section. I don't think either belongs in this article. - Che Nuevara 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i've done my best to repair the grammar of this section...however i still think it should be deleted190.58.5.168 00:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A section on dog heroes? That's patent nonsense. Putting aside the fact that it's obviously created with the point of counteracting the attacks section, it's clearly not neutral. Van Tucky  Talk 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism
The material recently reverted from the Temperment section was plagiarized totally or in part from : and/or other pages, so even if substantiated with refs it is not acceptible here. Bob98133 (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Carl A Rottweiler?
Is the hero of the picture book _Good Dog, Carl!_ and its sequels a Rottweiler?

Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it says that on the book's article. Mokoniki | talk 01:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro
Is there a way to have the intro based on sourced information -- otherwise how is the reader to know what's credible here, and what's anecdotal?842U (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"the Rottweiler is the number two breed of dog named in fatal human attacks from 1979 to 1998 " - Unlikely to be a Chihuahua
Can anyone else see my point? I love large working dogs the Rottweiler being one of them. The quote just struck me as being rather amusing....

Secretsmiler (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)secretsmiler


 * Hi. Sorry, no I don't see your point. What do Chihuahuas have to do with Rottweilers? Are you saying that because some dog breeds have never fatally attacked humans that it is unfair to say that Rotteilers have? Obviously, to fatally attack a human a dog has to be larger and/or more powerful than the human. Please explain. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings I'm new to all of this but I can see from almost every coment above that there really hasn't been any thought gone into either side of the debate I probably had a bettr idea of what the truth really is before I could walk both sides are as bad as each other (Al) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.106.45 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your insightful comment and for not breaking our track record for not putting any thought into the debate. This page is to discuss the article, not your disappointment with other editors. If you feel that you have valuable information to add to the article please do. Try to reference the sources of your information and maintain NPOV. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bob98133 - I was trying to allude to the point that; a) I can't seem to find during the time of the survey a precise number of dogs in the USA at the time, and in fact how many were on ratio large working dogs (with one would hope experienced and competent handlers)ha ha. b) the circumstances these fatal attacks occurred. and that c) It would of course, be a breed of dog that is large, clever and mainly used for security that would be likely to be in the top for human fatal attacks, not a toy breed. I would presume that a large breed readily available in the USA with a history of herding and attack would be the rottweiler as it is arguably on of the most favourable along with GSD.

It amused me to think that some people may assume from such survey results that a rottweiler would be a bad choice in dog, and although not necessarily fatal I would be interested to see on average how many bites/attacks (non-fatals) occurred in the USA at the same time from all dog breeds. A larger breed, with instincts like the rottweiler will on average always have serious consequences after an attack where as a toy breed wont since they neither have the jaw capacity or weight behind them - hence the slightly tongue in cheek English humour I deployed.


 * D

Secretsmiler (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)secretsmiler


 * Hi, Secretsmiler - I didn't mean to me smart-ass with my reply, but I doubt that the reliable numbers you are looking for exist. Even the total number of dogs owned in the US varies by hundreds of thousands, even millions, among various surveys, and since Rottweilers are often grouped with other dogs (Pit bulls and others), the numbers get even more confusing. There are far better statistics about attacks, but even those often confuse breeds. Personally, I've been bitten/attacked a lot more by small dogs than large ones, but of course, the injuries were less serious than if the dogs had been large. A lot of small dogs have reputations as biters, but it would be very rare that any of these attacks end with death. I think that this inequity will continue until there is a really good verifiable study about this. Bob98133 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi bob, I dont think your being a smart ass, if anything I think you and I are saying the same things in different ways, little dogs versa big dogs and the consequences of their attacks - the bigger the dog the more likely the severity of the attack! - maybe this is a prime exapmle of "you say tom-ateo and I say tom-arto" ?? :DSecretsmiler (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)secretsmiler


 * I agree we probably are saying the same thing, but in any event, it always ends up looking bad for Rottweilers and other big dogs since their attacks usually have more serious consequences.Bob98133 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, read this, I think its a simple concept, large dogs have more potential to kill humans, just as a cat has more potential than a guinea pig to kill a mouse, I don't think that chiuaua has anything to do with it... and I hate to have to do this but SecretSmiler, you did not really deploy any english humour, you employed it, however I thought it was good :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.186.228 (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

nose bleeds
Got up this morning and my 18 month old Rotti has a nose bleed wondering in anyone would know if this is common in the breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.179.221 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

a lot to do with the article... even if it is common, it cant be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.186.228 (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gallery
On the end of the photo gallery their is a pair of rottwilders but no captain i would like to see one. due to the face i can spot things out pretty good, thank you. --Rottie62 (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Temperament
The article originally said this.

"As with any breed, potentially dangerous behaviour in Rottweilers results from irresponsible ownership, abuse, neglect, or lack of socialization and training rather than from any inherent breed characteristic."

I have changed it to read as follows.

"As with any breed, potentially dangerous behaviour in Rottweilers usually results from irresponsible ownership, abuse, neglect, or lack of socialization and training. Inherent breed characteristics are not a factor."

First of all, Rottweilers, no matter how badly people want to dispel the myths about them, still do sometimes get "bad" genes. That requires the qualifier "usually" in the sentence. Second, two sentences are needed. If left as one, it says that no breeds have inherent characteristics for dangerous behavior. That's obviously not true in the least bit.

Also, "Inherent breed characteristics are not a factor" is an accurate statement because while individual dogs may have inherently dangerous behavior, the population as a whole does not have that characteristic.--Lithfo (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

These dogs temperament section need to show how violent them are. In Germany there are strict laws for tethering. It should be mention.190.213.40.199 (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, leashing is a kind of tethering, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.88.171 (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would make the assumption that "tethering" refers to fastening the dog to an immobile point, such as a tree, fence post, stake, etc. "Leashing" refers to fastening a lead to a dog on one end and held by a human at the other.T.R. Young (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

i realy dont like dogs and i am on another website that aint even mine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.171.32 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't it be made clear that these dogs have killed before? potential owners looking for a dog, doing research on the internet would need to know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.111.139 (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine several breeds of dogs have killed before. It doesn't deter everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.88.171 (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Stop
 * 2) Snout (teeth, tongue)
 * 3) Dewlap (throat, neck skin)
 * 4) Shoulder
 * 5) Elbow
 * 6) Forefeet
 * 7) Highest Point of the Rump
 * 8) Leg (thigh and hip)
 * 9) Hock
 * 10) Hind feet
 * 11) Withers
 * 12) Stifle
 * 13) Paws
 * 14) Tail  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.219.54 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The following seems like a convoluted way to present the statistic of 15,900 rottweilers being registered with the American Kennel Club in 2005. It seems like a suggestion, and also one out of place in the Temperament section:

"It is important that those who love the breed, respect the breed. Some 15,900 rottweilers were registered with the American Kennel Club in 2005, so the question to breed your rottweiler, especially if not registered and not meeting breed standards, should be given serious consideration."

Should this be re-written, deleted, or at least moved to a more appropriate section? Flyamanito (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

please help with pit bull related articles
It's amazing how the article for a breed that is commonly considered to more dangerous than most others, on average, is so much more coherent and objective than the articles related to the #1 breed of controversy (pit bulls). Any thing related to pit bulls here is a total mess, with vandalism and lying on both sides. Has anyone here tried to clean up the mess to which I am referring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

medium to large breed?
Article says 88-110 lbs for female and 110-130 for males. First of all, where is this range coming from and is it correct? The ADRK website for the FCI standard only says approximately 42 kg (92.5 lbs) and 50 kg (110 lbs). Second, assuming this is correct, should the article read large breed or large to giant breed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.91.60 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Negative publicity"
The odd term "negative publicity" is used to describe both portrayal in fiction of the Rottweiler as an evil dog and actual Rottweiler attack fatalities. I requested a citation for the claim, "The portrayal of Rottweilers as evil dogs in several fictional films and TV series, most notably in The Omen, and negative press has added to their negative publicity. This has led to Rottweilers being banned in some municipalities." I do not think that the Omen is the reason for breed specific legislation, but rather the attacks and fatalities from this breed are the source. The author of these sections of the article uses a tone that believes breed specific legislation is unfair and sourced by the media. A neutral tone would be better as well as sourcing of material. I'll give the author some time to back up the statements before changing or deleting them. A better example would be the specific words of the legislature and the judges who have worked with these laws. They have said some very particular things about Rottweilers and those particular things have become the law of the land regardless of the personal fondness that Rottweiler lovers and wikipedia authors may hold. Gx872op (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but breed specific legislation IS due EXCLUSIVELY to the media. In some towns, there were ZERO Rottweilers, but they were banned. That has been EXTREMELY well reported on in the press. Today, the article is essentially a neutral tone, however, additional sourcing and a sub-section of the above section MAY be in order, though public, hence political action tends to go along with both news AND film portrayals. And to be honest, DO tell us the last "good dog" story you saw on the news or was memorable in a film, to the point that a politician mentioned it? As to "they have said some very particular things about...", one could use the term "colored people" for Rottweilers historically and be equally valid AND accurate, doesn't mean REALITY isn't different than "the law of the land". Indeed, should we discuss "assault weapons laws"? Where there never has been, nor will there be, a valid definition of "assault weapon", meanwhile, the gun violence rate, during the "assault weapon ban" did NOT drop significantly in the inner cities. Frankly, if it were in *MY* power, before ANYONE could own ANY animal, they'd be trained and licensed to own them, before they could possess them. Too many abuse and neglect cases (and 99.9% or more cases were a dog injured or killed a human were neglect of training, socialization and treatment of the animal.)Wzrd1 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Docking?
Why do people dock a Rottweiler's tail? It seems cruel to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.242.56 (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia's article about the practice. Graham 87 02:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends upon the method used. With proper analgesia, the animal would be unable to feel pain. As for COMMUNICATION use for the tail, you are correct, for non-suggested reasons. For cart use, in the ancient (or a century and change terms) terms, docking was needed, as the tail would be harmfully abraded by small cart reigns and hardware, to a harmful extent, per a history I viewed today and had previously, never considered.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2011 Dog Attack Fatalities
The sentence "In 2011, of the 33 recorded dog attack fatalities in the U.S., four were by Rottweilers." under the temperament section is sourced from dogsbite.org, a website that skews fatal statistics by collecting data solely based on media reports. According to Identifying reliable sources, dogsbite.org is not peer-reviewed by any academic organizations, and falls under the self-published and questionable source. While dogsbite.org should be acceptable to represent the pro-BSL position, it is not a reliable site for statistics. As such, a potentially misleading statement taken from their website should be removed from this article.PearlSt82 (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove it, that's clearly not a reliable source.    Joel Why? (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed it. Graham 87 11:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the rest of the paragraph as without the section deleted by Graham87 it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exactly2009 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Weight Information
The average/suggested/breed standard weights need to be reveiwed. The information listed in article is not found on the cited pages. DouglasCalvert (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What cited page? Looks to me like there's no citation at all!    Joel Why? (talk)
 * I was reerring to the FCI standard which is mentioned but not explicitly cited. The linked FCI standard says 50 and 42 kgs on average for males and females. I am not sure where the range of weights is taken from. DouglasCalvert (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Excessively positive bias
This article makes an excessive, visible effort to portray the breed in a sympathetic light. The Rottweiler is a genuinely dangerous animal, and that should not simply be brushed off as a human misconception. Rather than simply making oblique references to how "the breed has gained some negative publicity," before then launching into emotive apologetics, said apologetics should be balanced with citations of attacks. The attempt at rationalisation of Rottweiler attacks, by stating that they need to be taken in the context of overall dog attack statistics, is likewise defensive and inappropriate.

Petrus4 (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree that this page is strongly biased in favour of rottweilers. For example, the page appears to be in denial about the number of attacks caused by rottweilers. The following article claims that rottweilers have overtaken pit-bulls as the dog which causes the most fatalities in the US: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95747&page=1#.UdJ9U_ke03Q At the same time, according to the following report rottweilers are the 9th most-owned breed in the US: http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm The only possible conclusion is that rottweilers cause fatalities way out of proportion to their numbers. In plain language, they are dangerous dogs. Yet this isn't mentioned on this page at all, just vague, unsourced generalisations about how any aggressive traits in rotties are the result of bad owners or unsuitable training. Speaklanguages (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting too that the Marine Corps has banned rottweilers from its bases after the fatal mauling of a 3-year old boy: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/my-entry.html Speaklanguages (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The rottweiler is a dangerous animal; just like an electrical outlet is a dangerous item. Usually, when someone gets hurt, it is because someone did something stupid. If you walk up to a Rottweiler and it attacks you, then it either was not trained right, or you were not where you were supposed to be. The moral of the story is not to do something that is going to piss off the 150lb hunting dog (you know "hunting" where you "kill" things?), just like you shouldn't piss of an electrical outlet or a police officer or a guy twice you size. 71.21.153.42 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Petrus4, I appreciate your concern that people who read on rottweilers need to think they are dangerous, as they are. But I do not see how the article is sympathetic, it states what is there, after all as the user above mentioned a rottweiler has potential for harm if you let it, One should not be surprised that he is killed by a dog like that if he takes the risk. I could make a case that the most dangerous place to be is inside as more people have died inside than outside. Therefore I will paint all articles on houses and buildings angrily as they should not be sympathised with as human killers - thats what this really is, a widescale, slightly unfounded fear of these dogs Malkitas (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this article is trying to counter the preception of rottweilers as aggressive, mean dogs. what the article needs is valid sources describing the temperament of rottweilers, not scenes from movies and tv shows. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, on this date, the article is rather well balanced. It is true that there were a number of bite incidents that required hospitalization and a number that caused death, some years back. That was due to a trend that was quite well documented, where people wanted large, intimidating appearing dogs, but never socialized the dog or trained it. I've known dozens of Rottweilers and even more pit bulls (even rescued a starving pit bull bitch), all of which were well trained and socialized. The ONLY problem I ever had with a Rottweiler was from a bitch snapping at my thigh, which gave me a REAL silver dollar sized bruise and minor cut. That was due to miscommunication, as she was beginning weaning of pups, had had a half dozen people examining her pups and after the last was just leaving, *I* came by to repair the family television. It was a warning snap that was misjudged, considering the embarrassed retreat of the bitch and "sheepish" expression. To claim that the article attempts to "makes an excessive, visible effort to portray the breed" is simply tested, reword the comment to say, "This article makes an excessive, visible effort to portray electricity in a sympathetic light". The key difference is, electricity kills more people per year than a decade of dog attacks, GLOBALLY or nationally. If the dog is trained, socialized and exercised (which ALL dogs should be), there is no problem whatsoever. Indeed, when the above is met, the animal is damned lazy.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Main Photograph
I have a photo of a rottweiler that I think is a much better shot than the one that currently is being used for the main photo. However, I have long been against people using this page to arbitrarily post pics of their pet rottie (i.e. this ain't Facebook!) And, in the interest of full disclosure, yes, this is my dog, so I may be a bit biased. But, it's taken by a professional photographer and I really think this shot is a spectacular representation of the breed. (He's neutered, so I'm not making money showing him or breeding him or anything -- I really do think it's a better shot for the page, but the only thing I personally would get out of it bragging rights.) So, I am NOT going to change the photo unless there is some consensus. You can view the photo HERE. If you prefer the current shot, no hard feelings. Joel Why? (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Use in concentration camps
Shouldn't the breeds use / exploitation by the nazis in the concentration camps be mentioned under the history heading --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know that there's any reason why this should be mentioned any more than their use by any other police or military organization. Any reason why this should stand out, other than the fact that the people involved were nazis? Elf | Talk 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Great... now some biased person is going to try and blame the Holocaust on Rottweilers. Get a grip! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The suggested "edits" are far more biased than the article itself, which does not merit the "warning" flag. The article is accurate and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.138.128 (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of fanpov?
I have never been to this page before tonight but have been looking at dog breed pages before editing a different breeds page. in comparison to many of them I thought this page looked pretty good. I could not see the reason for the fanpov tag. I went all the way back to September 2012 and looked at every single edit made since then in order to get a good sense of the page history. I feel the original addition of the fanpov tag was done in good faith but as no true explanation was given I am guessing it was about the temperament section. That has been edited several times since. The very positive description of the AKC was put in quotes making it clear it was not a wikipedia authored bit, stuff was added about the CDC study with appropriate dates given to show the age of the study. To my eyes both sides are presented and the article is neutral. As such I am going to suggest removal of the fanpov tag unless someone objects and posts up their reasons. If the consensus is to keep the tag then I suggest updating the date on it.Jemmaca (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm not going to bother looking back to 2+ years ago to see exactly why it was added; given that there's information that discusses Rotti bites/fatalities from bites, that's hardly a fan's perspective. Removing the tag, but if anyone objects, please post why you believe it is warranted.    Joel Why? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oldest herding breed?
The article says that the Rottweiler may be the oldest herding breed. I'd just like to point out that if the Rottweiler dates only to the Roman Empire, the Cardigan Welsh Corgi would be older. The Cardigan is believed to be over 3000 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesr5 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Rottweiler has a recorded history going back to Roman times. It may be a much older breed. Although I think that when you are talking in thousands of years does it really matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exactly2009 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is indeed one of the oldest breeds, in that it is probably the most closely descended from the Roman-era Germanic variety of the Mollasur, which was used for herding, guarding, and dog fighting. This is still using a bit of creative license; it's obviously different; it just retains more of the phenotype traits (except for the much shorter coat). It's worth nothing that while the Cardigan variety of Corgi and the Rottweiler are quite old, the oldest herding dog is the Caucasian Sheepdog. That breed, however, was only standardised in the Middle Ages, as a combination from landrace dogs that were used almost exclusively for herding, and a standard breed mostly descended from them that was used in guarding and light droving. All working dog breeds were non-standard, and quite varied, until the Middle Ages, with the exception of reindeer herding dogs like the Samoyed (which I guess could actually be considered the oldest), the Icelandic sheepdog (very early medieval, standardised due to isolation), and some Sami reindeer herding dogs which were semi-standardised. There are older breeds that the ones that you guys mentioned. We might want to add a slight change in the wording in the article to reflect this, though we don't need to go into this kind of detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.154.10 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing Rottweiler
Please unblock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:43:1:9A18:D106:C56F:E82F:DF23 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015 accept please
They are large dogs.

John Kwiecinski (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. Nici  Vampire  Heart  19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015
110-132lb

66.87.80.128 (talk) 17:54, 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015
I want to edit about health (Bloating also known as Gastric Dilation in dog)

Wadhwanjali (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This cannot be done because your request is vague. Please read instructions. Request must be specifically with the text you want added or changed. As well, please provide a source.  Fylbecatulous talk 10:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015
SIZE AND WEIGHT :

Height at withers : For males is 61 - 68 cm. 61 - 62 cm is small 63 - 64 cm medium height. 65 - 66 cm is large - correct height 67 - 68 cm very large. Weight : 50 kg.

Height at withers : For bitches is 56 - 63 cm. 56 - 57 cm is small 58 - 59 cm medium height. 60 - 61 cm is large - correct height 62 - 63 cm very large. Weight : Approximately 42 kg.

Tabalizer (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is already listed in the infobox. Cannolis (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016
What happens if the page gets deleted? Is it fine ?

Thank you. 208.54.90.166 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand this question. Wikipedia's article about Rottweilers is not going to be deleted.  Are you asking about a page used as a reference in this article?  Sometimes internet sites are moved or deleted, but they can normally still be used as sources by Wikipedia.  WP:LINKROT has a full explanation.  If this has happened, please let us know, and we may be able to link to an archived copy of the page.
 * By the way, whenever you make an edit request like this, you make sure the template says  |answered=no , not  |answered=yes , or it's likely that no-one will see your request. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016
Dear Wikipedia why are you not accepting that the rottweiler is a large dog? Please change it back.Fix it up. How come? The dogs are larger than golden retrievers. Please accept. The Golden Retriever is a medium dog. Please is polite. Why are you being rude? Be polite. Graham87 you are blind. Jones you are wrong. Restore. Thank you. Look at KC NZKC UKC ANKC and CKC.

2601:43:0:4A27:9405:ADC9:DDC5:F91F (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks!
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. And remember to cite reliable sources. clpo13(talk) 22:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:43:0:4A27:9405:ADC9:DDC5:F91F (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC) What does reliable sources mean?


 * Information on how to identify reliable sources may be found via this link. Essentially, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:43:0:4A27:9405:ADC9:DDC5:F91F (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Size
Apparently the description of this breed's size is of great importance to certain parties. Let's see what the sources say: As far as I could see, CKC and UKC did not use any comparable term, nor categorise the breed in a way that's informative here.
 * FCI "medium to large"
 * ANKC "medium to large"
 * AKC "medium large"
 * KC (UK) "large"
 * NZKC "large"

So it seems reliable sources disagree somewhat. Unless anyone knows of any reason one or more of these sources is more reliable or better regarded than others, I'd suggest that Wikipedia can most accurately summarise the sources by stating something like "The breed is regarded as medium to large or large  ", with the refs properly formatted, of course. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank for your help in roasting this chestnut. I have made the revision [with one small change = "medium-to-large"] — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124;  08:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.54 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Protection
Good morning, How has this IP been able to edit following the protection placed earlier ? — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 10:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because no protection was placed earlier; a template was just added. It's still on Pending Changes protection. Graham 87 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank for your explanation. — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124;  09:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Types
Why aren't the types listed? I know there are at least 2: German and American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.254.78 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are NOT two types of Rottweiler. There is a German and American STANDARD, but these standards define what is accepted in confirmation, not different 'types'.  The difference being that the German Standard calls for undocked tails, whereas the American Standard does not.Tyoung81 (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should list them? You seem to know a little on the subject Ecth (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As with many breeds (e.g., Border Collies, German Shepherds pop to mind) there might or might not be clearly defined, distinct types. With Border Collies in the U.S., for example, one can point to Border Collies that are successful in the AKC breed ring versus Border Collies registered with one of the herding associations rather than with the AKC, and note that breeders for the former tend to focus on the AKC breed standard for appearance, whereas the latter breeders tend to focus on herding skills, resulting in dogs in the latter category that are less likely to conform to the AKC standard and are more likely to demonstrate strong herding instinct.  In German Shepherds, it's generally accepted that European Shepherds' rear legs and hips do not have the extremely enlongated appearance that the American ones have, resulting in fewer hip problems in the European breeds, but it's hard to put an exact label on the types (because there are exceptions in both cases).  If you can clearly define and describe differences among various groups and attribute the differences to a well-documented reason, by all means, talk about it. Elf | Talk 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had many of those dogs, there is a clear demarcation between American and German types. American Rottweilers are shorter on legs, have wider head and shoulders, with a shorter snout, whereas the German breed are taller, slimmer and with the longer snout. They also both have similar, but different temperament.104.163.157.239 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

How can the same page have the fatality information and then that media portrayal bit?
Obviously the media portrayals aren't lying, if this breed is responsible for that many fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C100:B9D5:8855:5080:E72E:EC35 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. Maybe somebody wrote the negative section, and somebody else wrote the positive section in an effort to make the article more neutral, or vice versa. It seems odd that the fatalities section refers to "Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs" like they are one breed or two extremely close breeds, when they're not closely related. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Do editors mimic the breed's personality?
Odd that the article is protected. Also the tag on the History section is clearly spurious, relatively short and if anything overburdened with refs. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Media Portrayal
There is a certain film missing from the media portrayal subsection of this article that I think will help expand on how Rottweiler demeanor plays into the portrayal of them.

The 1986 film Ferris Bueller's Day Off has a scene in it where Mr. Rooney, the principal, tries to bust into Ferris's house in order to expose him for truancy. He tries to enter through a dog door at the back of the house, sticking his head into the kitchen. Mr. Rooney instantly encounters a rottweiler that instantly starts to growl at him before attacking. This is an excellent example of the rottweiler's natural instinct to be very hostile towards any guest that it doesn't recognize, which is a key trait of rottweilers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:497F:F7AB:FC9A:D614:BFB6:5158 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)