Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dog fighting breeds (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I am setting aside any arguments based on the sentiments of pet-owners, and others that are too cursory to be informative. There remain policy-based opinions on either side of this debate, that are numerically quite evenly split. I believe all the participants here agree that a variety of dogs were used in dog-fighting, that dogs were bred for fighting, and that many labels were used for this large set of dogs that continue to be used today. Reliable sources have been provided that discuss dog "breeds" used in fighting (I use quotes intentionally): the list therefore has a scope that is defensible. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns that the kinds of dogs described by those terms do not represent the same things today as they did when dog fighting was common, and no sourcing has been provided to show that the terms translate clearly from the nineteenth century to the present. As such it is quite clear that stating "modern-day breed X was a fighting breed in year 18YY" would be complete original research. However, it isn't clear that any list article on this topic would necessarily be original research, nor that the article is so full of OR that WP:TNT deletion is justified. While this argument to delete has more support than opposition, it does not in my opinion rise to the level of consensus. I will note in passing that kennel clubs do not have a monopoly among reliable sources on the use of "breed" as a classification, and that any consensus on this topic needs to address the sources that use the term "breed" to refer to categories of fighting dogs. I would recommend that any future discussion begin by examining how to define the topic of this list in a way that avoids OR, and only then examining whether a list so defined is worth keeping (in any form: standalone list, prose article, subsection of Dog fighting, something else). Vanamonde (Talk) 10:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

List of dog fighting breeds
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This list is a POV fork of Dog fighting and conflates modern purebred dogs with the mixed breeds of fighting dogs that were used for blood sports back in the early- to mid-19th century. Dog fighting is an illegal sport in many countries, and this list serves no good purpose for modern conformation show dogs and other modern breeds that are absolutely not/never have been fighting dogs.  Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Self-closed by Atsme. Adding: I realize that redirects are cheap, but please consider the damage caused by these types of lists when considering the breeds of dogs listed are known to be beloved family pets, or conformation/performance show dogs. The only reason I can imagine for any modern breed being included on this malformed, misguided list is because of the bad reputation of their centuries-old mixed breed ancestors, and a very small percentage of modern dogs that have been either misidentified, and/or purposely trained and used nefariously by ill-intentioned people, or improperly socialized which is the fault of dog owners, not the dog. It should be salted not redirected.  Atsme 💬 📧 11:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) (updated 14:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC))


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Sports,  and Lists.  Atsme  💬 📧 11:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WT:WikiProject Dogs  Atsme  💬 📧 23:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding - since it was brought up in a comment below that the reason for my nomination wasn't clear or policy based, I will take this opportunity to elaborate. This list is basically a WP:HOAX, fails WP:OR, fails WP:V for accuracy – the sources are neither supported by science, nor do they support the context of a list of dog fighting breeds – it amplifies the misinterpretations by laymen about dog breeds, and it is noncompliant with WP:NPOVFACT.  It is a fake list that probably should have been speedy deleted rather than brought here. The dog breeds listed are not verifiable dog fighting breeds – there is no such thing as a dog fighting breed.  Anybody who has ever owned or been around dogs knows there's a high likelihood that 2 male dogs – purebred or mongrels – that don't know each other will likely fight each other over a female, regardless of breed. Also see this NYTimes article which links to this article in Science, VOL. 376, NO. 6592.  A few more common sense facts: (1) any dog that is/was used to fight another dog in the clandestine sport of dog fighting is unverifiable as a bona fide dog breed – it could be a mixed Heinz 57, or a crossbreed but highly unlikely that it's a modern registered purebred for use in an illegal activity; (2) visual identification of dogs is proven unreliable, so what is a pit bull considering it is not a breed; (3) there is only one dog breed with the term pit bull in its breed name: the American Pit Bull Terrier.   Atsme  💬 📧 04:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This list is not WP:HOAX, or WP:OR as the concept is discussed in many reliable articles (like the ones you describe) and in legislation, see Breed-specific legislation. The UK, for example, restricts dogs of both historic breed and of dog type, treating them separately. Perhaps the more suitable policy is WP:FRINGE as the concept of a dog-fighting breed/BSL does not agree with the scientific consensus.
 * Despite this, Wikipedia cannot ignore the fact that the idea of a dog fighting breed exists both legally and historically, and this AfD feels more like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as a consequence. To delete List of dog fighting breeds on this principle seems to contradict a lot of our other articles with reliable sourcing, as Lightburst notes below. Has there been an RfC on the concept of dog-fighting breeds in the past? NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: ^^SPA or block evader with 15 edits^^  Atsme 💬 📧 20:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty well convinced that it is correct to describe the nominated page as failing OR and V, but I take issue with painting it as WP:HOAX. That's over-the-top, and unnecessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , is there better terminology to use in place of hoax? Perhaps fictitious? Regardless, it is unrealistic so I'll just strike hoax and stick with OR and V. Thank you for your candid input.  Atsme  💬 📧 23:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking it. The better terminology is "original research". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of having an agenda because I disagree with you. I think everything I've said is at least somewhat useful to the people in this AfD and it is not OK for you to imply that my words don't matter by accusing me of breaking the rules here. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources that add clarity:
 * Durham University Study: Modern dog breeds genetically disconnected from ancient ancestors – Breeds such as the Akita, Afghan Hound and Chinese Shar-Pei, which have been classed as "ancient", are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds due to the effects of lots of cross-breeding, the study found.
 * Observations | Evolution: The Curious Case of Dogs by Christie Wilcox, an author for Nature Magazine – We picked dogs that were less aggressive or looked unique. And in doing so, we spurred on rapid diversification and evolution in an unbelievable way.
 * The Conversation: Why Dog Breeds Aren't Considered Separate Species – In the course of dog domestication, their behaviour, morphology and physique has changed, and differences among dog breeds are indeed astonishing. Imagine if future palaeontologists were to find Chihuahua remains in the fossil record: this animal would appear to have little in common with wolves.

Science has finally caught up to what professional dog breeders have known and have been engaged in developing since the mid– to late–1800s when purebred dogs became the new trend because of the laws that were passed that made bloodsports illegal.  Atsme 💬 📧 11:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: If deleted, the category Category:Dog fighting breeds should also be considered at CfD. TartarTorte 20:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * conflates modern purebred dogs with the mixed breeds of fighting dogs Maybe the issue here is the title is inaccurate. If it was retitled to something like List of historical dog fighting breeds, would that fix the issue for you? Would the article still be accurate?
 * Dog fighting is an illegal sport in many countries WP:NPOV Wikipedia presents reliable knowledge without editorial bias.
 * not/never have been fighting dogs If they have never been fighting dogs, then remove them from the list. That's not ground to delete an article.
 * I don't know how/why this article was created, but I'm not sure how it is a POV fork if dog fighting is the main topic and this is just a list of breeds. Maybe the issue is it just needs to be reworded/retitled to accurately describe what it's listing. The void century (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the ancestral dogs that fought in the pits in the early- to mid-19th century were not a bona fide breed; rather, they were mongrels with undocumented pedigrees. They were named for their function (bull dog, rat terrier, bird dog, pointer, etc.) and were of a certain dog type. There were no breed names because purebreds that were documented by notable dog breed registries did not exist prior to the founding of the KC in 1873. See Bull and terrier. Modern purebred registries such as the KC and AKC do not condone dog fighting, and are very strict about their requirements. They will take swift action against a club member who partakes in such a despicable clandestine sport. It's a POV fork of dog fighting which does not list breed names because there is no way to positively verify by visual ID that a dog is of a specific breed. It was media hype that helped create the "pit bull" even though no such breed exists. Far too many innocent dogs have been euthanized as a result of misidentification based on incorrect visual id practices. I see no good purpose for WP to perpetuate such misinformation about modern dog breeds in such a list which is based on the anecdotal accounts, and the reputation of their ancestors from centuries past, or because advocates of breed specific legislation want them all annihilated, or because irresponsible pet owners failed to socialize their dogs properly.  Atsme  💬 📧 02:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Best to expand Dog fighting if necessary. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator doesn't make any reference to policy, and very few purebred dogs are still being used for what they were originally bred for. Nobody is herding with Shetland sheepdogs, for example, almost all herding is now done by border collies. The other argument that fighting breeds never existed because breeds don't exist without a kennel club to register them is not something I find convincing. Whatever this nomination is about, it looks like this does have something or other to do with pro-pitbull advocacy. Geogene (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting this list does not make Wikipedia better. The list could perhaps be improved with ideas from Talk:List of dog fighting breeds. 80.187.68.191 (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: ^^SPA or block evader with 1 edit^^  Atsme 💬 📧 20:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reasons cited above.  7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Editor was subsequently topic-banned by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Reading through the articles linked to, they mention these dogs were bred for fighting. You can rename it List of dog breeds created for fighting if you want.  Bull and terrier reads It was a time in history when, for thousands of years, dogs were classified by use or function, unlike the modern pets of today that were bred to be conformation show dogs and family pets. Bull and terrier crosses were originally bred to function as fighting dogs for bull and bear baiting, and other popular blood sports during the Victorian era. You could also rename it List of dog breeds used in bloodsports.  Bull_and_terrier explains how they bred new species of dogs to use in blood sports.  https://scienceline.org/2017/09/de-evolution-bulldog/ is the referenced source.  That article goes into detail about how modern bulldogs are the results of breeding for fighting purposes.  This is a real thing, reliable sources do cover it, the articles linked to in the list cover it in greater detail for each specific case.  Note the nominator mentions "please consider the damage caused by these types of lists", which is not a valid reason to delete it.  Wikipedia does not censor.   D r e a m Focus  22:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Similar to D4iNa4 above, the topic is a grey area which is best discussed in the text at Dog fighting. Also lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. (I came here from the ARS listing.) If I understand this admittedly complex issue correctly, the problem is that sources show that, when these dogs were used for fighting, they were not identified as these breeds, because the current definition of dog breeds was not yet in effect. See Dog type, where it cites sources saying that breeds were formed after fighting had been outlawed and that breeding had altered the dogs from those who had been used for fighting. They were called by these names in some cases, but the names are not the breeds, and the pagenames in the list are of breeds. It is therefore contrary to sourcing to say that these breeds were first created for fighting, but are no longer used that way. I'm not seeing a viable way of renaming the page to address that. ("List of dog breeds that are not quite the same as kinds of dogs that were historically used for fighting" – nope.) We don't need lists of everything, and I think WP:LSC (and probably WP:NOR) points towards deleting this list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding some clarifications to my comment, based on some recent comments below. At least for me personally, my opinion has nothing to do with wanting to protect family pets, or any other WP:RGW. The invocation of genetic tests was made as a keep argument, not delete, and legalization dates are significant in terms of relating to the dates of breed emergence. And nobody is disputing the notability of the subject or the fact that there are lots of sources; the issue is what those sources say in terms of how to create a list page. (I hope that the closer will carefully evaluate the accuracy of comments, rather than just counting !votes.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the list does what it should per our WP:LISTN guideline Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I just went through the individual dog breeds mentioned on the list. There are 21 dog breeds on our list and only four breeds do not make mention of their dog fighting history in their individual articles. Of the four two of them are descended from fighting dogs and two are questionable and perhaps should be removed:
 * 1) √ Shar Pei - but another name for the dog is the "Chinese fighting dog"
 * 2) √ Neapolitan Mastiff descend from Mastiff which is a fighting dog
 * 3) X Spanish Mastiff not descended from a mastiff - need more information for inclusion
 * 4) X Kerry Blue Terrier need more information for inclusion
 * Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Mastiff was simply a generic name for a large dog. The Shar Pei was a hunting/herding & family guardian dog that nearly went extinct in the 1940s when China turned communist and started levying high taxes on dogs. “The Guinness Book of World Records” named it the rarest dog breed in the world, late 60s and 70s. To call the modern Shar Pei a "Chinese fighting dog" and include it on an encyclopedic list as if it's a verifiable dog fighting breed is ludicrous, especially when there is no verification beyond anecdotal accounts – and that applies equally to all the modern dog breeds on that list. A Dogster article mentions ancient artifacts, and a translated 13th-century Chinese manuscript that refers to "a wrinkled dog with traits like those of the Chinese Shar-Pei." Sorry, but that is not verifiable science-based evidence of it being the same breed as the modern Shar-Pei, or that it is/was a dog fighting breed, much less a popular one. Also keep in mind that not everything we find in RS is worthy of inclusion in WP, and this is one such case. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, demonstrated notability is not the issue here. In other words, each of the listed breeds is notable, and the topic of fighting dogs is notable. That's not the problem. The problem is that it is original research to treat the breeds, as they are covered on the pages about each of them, as identical to the animals that were used as fighting dogs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I continue to be puzzled by this Fringe theory that modern dog breeds are somehow meaningfully different than their fighting ancestors, simply because the ancestors were "mongrels" and the modern descendants have kennel club pedigrees. But I've added this source from a veterinary journal that acknowleges that Shar-Pei's were fomerly used as fighting dogs in ancient China and this NIH DNA study that explicitly links modern bull and terrier breeds with their fighting ancestors: The ability to determine a time of hybridization for recent admixture events can refine sparse historical accounts of breed formation. For example, when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860–1870. This coincides perfectly with the historical descriptions that, though they do not clearly identify all breeds involved, report the popularity of dog contests in Ireland and the lack of stud book veracity, hence undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894) Here is another one: In the mid 1800s dog fighting reached a peak in popularity and breeds were created specifically for the sport. The most successful cross created for this purpose combined the tenacity and energy of the terrier with the power and devotion of the molossers (Frome 1999 (rev. 2004)). These dogs, the bull-terriers, rose to popularity and remain so to this day though the sport has long since fallen from grace.  . The idea that modern breeds were (and are still) used for dogfighting doesn't seem to be controversial in the literature. Geogene (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to hear it described as fringe. I'm no expert on the source material, and I'm receptive to being convinced to change my mind, but the sources cited at Dog type seem to me to present a convincing argument. Also, having a DNA linkage is not the same thing as being, well, the same thing. Humans have a DNA linkage to pre-human primates. You quote a source that dates some breeds to 1860–1870, which agrees with other sources I've seen. But dog fighting was outlawed in England in 1835, and at about the same time in Ireland . Mongrels and purebred breeds are not identical. There is no question that the present-day breeds descended, and even descended closely, from the pre-1835 varieties. But they are not the same thing, and I don't think it's fringe to acknowledge that. I still think it's OR to ignore the sources at Dog types, and instead infer the opposite based on a misunderstanding of what a DNA linkage is. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I decided to look at our page on the Beagle, choosing it somewhat at random as a well-know breed that is unrelated to the fighting types; it's also an FA. From the lead section: The modern breed was developed in Great Britain around the 1830s from several breeds, including the Talbot Hound, the North Country Beagle, the Southern Hound, and possibly the Harrier. Thus, Beagles will have close DNA linkages with those other dogs. But the Beagle breed is not the same kind of dog as any of those. Our page describes Beagles as scent hounds, whereas the Talbot may have been either a scent hound or a sight hound. We might put the Talbot on a list of sight hound breeds, but it would be OR to put the Beagle on that list simply because it might have been bred from the Talbot. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dogfighting was legal in parts of the U.S. until 1976, according to Dog fighting in the United States. The United Kennel Club (UKC), which still exists as a registry (and which renounced dogfighting a long time ago), was founded in 1898 originally to register fighting dogs as purebreds, and this is where the American Pit Bull Terrier breed came from . The AKC doesn't recognize the APBT as a breed, which is why you'll never see one at Westminster. They categorize pitbulls as American Staffordshire Terriers, which is how that breed came about; the UKC does not recognize Amstaffs. And so we see that this "purebred vs. mongrel" thing is more or less arbitrary. Mongrel fighting dogs became purebred American Pit Bull Terrier fighting dogs when a new kennel club was created to recognize them as a breed. Do sources exist that say that purebreds and mongrels are biologically different? Geogene (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the ec. For your last question, I guess it depends on how one defines "biologically different". I readily agree that the purebred vs. mongrel distinction is muddled. But the fact that the distinction is imprecise does not indicate that there is, consequently, no difference between them. The very fact of the contradictory terminologies that you describe should lead us to be careful not to assume that the fighting dogs were identical to the current breeds. (I know there have been some recent content disputes about the nomenclature of bull terriers, but I'm not clear on the status of those.) I take your point that dogs have been used for fighting up to the present day, and so there could well be modern breeds that are used that way. In your link to Dog fighting in the US, it does name some breeds, albeit without inline citations. Perhaps there is a way to identify breeds that are well-sourced to be used, as the actual breeds, for fighting. That I don't know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking further on that, for a list we would have to define some sort of criterion for historical use versus modern use, and it's unclear how to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to list of historical dog fighting breeds or merge/redirect to dog fighting or delete. Some sources say that certain breeds were bred for dog fighting, but other sources likely say the opposite-- that those breeds are harmless domestic pets. Historical terminology seems to differ from current terminology in this case. Thus @Atsme makes a compelling argument that this is WP:OR. The info here would make more sense in the context of the dog fighting article. At the very least, using the words "extant" and "extinct" to organize this article seems like WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, using scientific terminology to describe a colloquial topic. The void century (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

- I've put this horizontal rule here out of courtesy to other editors participating in the AfD. It is unusual in AfDs to have very lengthy debates between a few editors about how to interpret sources, as opposed to multiple editors expressing views on keep/delete/etc. What follows is a lengthy debate involving only me, Atsme, and Geogene, and it doesn't really come to any agreement. Editors and the closer can of course evaluate it however you wish. Editors wishing to continue providing AfD views can do so beneath the horizontal rule at the bottom of the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * For clarity – what I can't seem to get across to Geogene is that documented purebred dogs; i.e., a documented, pedigreed breed that breeds true, did not exist prior to the formation of The Kennel Club in 1873. Calling a dog that existed in the 1800s by modern registered breed names unambiguously fails V and OR. Back in the early 19th century, dogs were referred to by their call names and their function. IOW, Joe the bulldog was a dog that was used to bait bulls. When they crossed bulldogs with terriers (terriers burrowed into lairs after varmints), they got the "bull and terrier".  What breeds comprised the bulldog, no one knows, and the same applies to all the other dog types.  Geogene's allegations of Fringe theory is grossly mistaken. Furthermore, I'm a long way from being an advocate of pit bulls, unless advocating for accuracy, neutrality and ridding the project of misinformation is now considered an advocacy, then I'm guilty. My time on WP is not inspired by anything beyond my desire to share my many years of professional knowledge and experience in topic areas where I can contribute at an expert level, including this topic area. It's the keep arguments that are based on fringe theories and anecdotal accounts (such as statues) which place the existence of a wrinkled skin type of dog during the Han Dynasty. It is that type of dog that is believed to be the progenitor of the modern Chinese Shar Pei. There's also a 13th century Chinese manuscript that refers to a dog with wrinkled skin and some other characteristics like those of the Shar-Pei. Keep in mind that according to the AKC, the Chinese Shar Pei's "documented U.S. history began in the mid-1960s, but American interest in the breed truly began in 1973."  The keep votes are banking on undocumented, unverifiable anecdotal accounts, and as such, they've failed WP:V and WP:OR by saying the modern Shar Pei is the same dog as its ancient ancestor. Geogene needs to re-read the PLOS research article he cited above because it describes 2 different types of dogs - early 1970s type and a "traditional type".  Notice the word "type" - type is not a "breed". Visual IDs are not reliable in determining a breed of dog - phenotype is not inherited and it is variable. It's common knowledge that dogs can look like a particular breed and fail DNA testing. I am not going to waste time arguing the obvious. The following recent scientific research unequivocally supports the deletes:
 * 1) Science: Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes
 * 2) Smithsonian: ''Dog Breed Doesn’t Affect Behavior, According to New Genetic Research"
 * 3) Nature: Massive study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour
 * This list needs to be deleted and salted. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:V and WP:OR are about sourcing. Sources do say that at least some of the dogs on this list were used for fighting. I've pulled up the PLOS One paper Atsme thinks I should re-read. Here is a link to the source,, and here is a quote from the source: Shar-Pei dogs have been companion animals for centuries within China where they were commissioned to guard and hunt, and to sometimes serve as fighting animals. Atsme is trying to claim that this source is wrong. That fails WP:V, is WP:OR, and is quite possibly WP:FRINGE. Geogene (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, editors on all sides of the dispute need to drop the exaggerated labels, whether HOAX or FRINGE. And editor motivations, as well as arguments based on not causing real-world harm to dog breeds, are irrelevant to AfD decisions. We won't get to consensus as long as that goes on.
 * The PLOS Genetics (it's not PLOS One, but is from the same journal family) paper is about a DNA sequence's (coding for hyaluronic acid synthase) role in a fever disease, not about the history of dog fighting in the breed. To focus on the opening sentence in the Introduction section, which is just giving a brief context for what follows, overlooks the fact that the rest of the source goes on to argue that the Shar-Peis of the present are genetically different from those that were "companion animals for centuries within China". It still looks to me like we have a strong preponderance of sourcing that says that there is a poor correlation between modern-day breeds and the types that have been used (at least over history, perhaps not in present-day illegal practices) for fighting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also this source which states: Breeds such as the Akita, Afghan Hound and Chinese Shar-Pei, which have been classed as "ancient", are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds due to the effects of lots of cross-breeding, the study found. It's a 2012 PNAS study. Oh, and see this article and scroll down to the section, It Never Really Existed, which is not an unusual find in some RS. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 03:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That first source is about the first dogs, 10,000 years ago or more. It's not the same sense of the word ancient that most people use when they refer to "ancient China". It also says, From there, high bootstrap values (>95%) support the basal position and genetic distinctiveness of the so-called ancient (basal) breeds: the Akita, Basenji, Eurasier, Finnish Spitz, Saluki, and Shar-Pei (Fig. 1 and Table 1)., how do you interpret that sentence? The "it never existed" thing isn't about any of the specific breeds being disputed, and so isn't relevant to the argument. Geogene (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Replying specifically about that sentence. This took a significant amount of reading for me, and it gets farther down into the weeds than is typically needed in an AfD discussion. Short answer: that sentence has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

The authors of the PNAS paper are looking at which dog types and breeds are closely or not closely related to one another (and to ancestral wolves). They are using things called single-nucleotide polymorphisms to find differences between one kind of dog and another, where the difference is a single point on the DNA (in other words, really, really small differences). Bootstrap values are explained here. A high bootstrap value means something is statistically significant. If one goes to that article, and scrolls down to Figure 1, it's a graph like those at the lead section of clade. Breeds that are "close" to each other on the "branches" of the graph are the most closely related to each other; when you have to move from one branch to another, those dogs are more distantly related. The parts that are in red are the ones that were closest to the wild wolves, and also are the ones that have the clearest statistical significance based on those bootstrap values. The blue ones are the ones that first branched off from the red ones, and have a little less statistical certainty, and as you go down through the grayer ones, those appeared later in history, but are subject to a lot of uncertainty in the results.


 * The paper simply isn't about which breeds are or are not the same as they were back when dogfighting was legal. It is not about how breeds did or did not change over time, just about which breeds are closely or distantly related to one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just thought of one thing. It does show that the Shar-Pei originated as something pretty close to the wild wolves. If one wants to stoop to violating WP:SYNTH, one can conclude that the Shar-Peis of historical China looked significantly different than the present-day breed, which fits with an image in one of the sources discussed here earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: The PLOS Genetics source actually does show that the original Shar-Peis and the present-day Shar-Peis are genetically different. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't approve of your hatting a block of relevant text where I explained how that was OR, and then restating your opinion here. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've repositioned the hat. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's Atsme's source, thank you for agreeing that it has nothing to do with the point at hand. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused now, why did you ask me about that specific sentence, instead of whether the source as a whole was relevant? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * One argument that's being thrown around here is that the concept of "breed" had no existence without kennel clubs to register them. (Words being used in some of the !votes for this AfD include "ludicrous" and "pseudoscience", but actual sources that back up that language haven't been provided). The sentence from that paper seems to me to be saying that Shar-peis have a distinct breed identity that pre-dates the 1960s when the AKC recognized them as a breed. Therefore, there is no reason to not list them as having been used in fighting, since there is sourcing that supports that claim. I've found another SNP-based analysis that also discuss the existence of what they consider to be ancient breeds, Ancient breeds are a small group of dog breeds originating more than 500 years ago, characterized by detectable genetic admixture with wolves and represent an early stage of dog domestication . This demonstrates that at least some authors are publishing in scientific journals using the word "breed" to describe dogs that existed 500 years ago, or more. Given that, why wouldn't Wikipedia do the same? I acknowlege your point that dogs are expected to change over time, however I don't believe that this article claims that they don't. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I spent close to an hour carefully reading up on what that specific sentence meant, and you could have made that argument without imposing on me to do so.


 * I don't think anyone in this discussion is disputing the fact that there were ancient breeds of dogs. And I don't think anyone disputes the fact that present-day Shar-Peis, for example, descended from ancient Shar-Peis – nor that the ancient ones were called Shar-Peis. But, as I pointed out just above, ancient Shar-Peis looked pretty similar to domesticated wolves – which present-day ones clearly do not. They can both be called Shar-Peis. Plenty of sources can call them both "breeds". Other sources use the term "types" to make the distinction between earlier versions of breeds, and present-day versions. That does not mean that sources using the term breeds, and sources using the term types, are contradicting each other, so long as the sources are understood in context. It also doesn't mean that the sources are saying that the dogs whom they place in a breed at the time that the animals differentiated from wolves, are identical to the breed members that exist today.


 * I said above that the PNAS source never compared DNA samples (that they obtained from archeological sites) with present-day dog DNA. I agree with you that this does not provide evidence that they were different. But it also does not provide evidence that they were the same.


 * The issue here is not whether sources about dogfighting use the word "breed" for dogs that were historically used for fighting; there's no need to seek out molecular genetics studies to find sources that do. The issue is whether sources say that the historical versions of breeds, used as fighting dogs, are the same as the present-day breeds that are widely understood to be those that are classified by kennel clubs. The issue is whether it is editorially appropriate to use the present-day breed names to identify dogs that were used for fighting in the past as the same as dogs today. Sources still seem to me to say that dogs that were called by a breed name in the past and used for fighting, have undergone further breeding, not selecting for fighting propensity, to become the dogs that breed names are currently used for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any of those sources. What I've seen are sources like the PLOS Genetics paper that say unequivocably that these breeds were used for fighting. Geogene (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I already linked to Dog type, where you can find sources. And you are doing WP:IDHT about where I said that The issue here is not whether sources about dogfighting use the word "breed" for dogs that were historically used for fighting; there's no need to seek out molecular genetics studies to find sources that do. The issue is whether sources say that the historical versions of breeds, used as fighting dogs, are the same as the present-day breeds that are widely understood to be those that are classified by kennel clubs. And even more so, for where I said of the PLOS Genetics source that To focus on the opening sentence in the Introduction section, which is just giving a brief context for what follows, overlooks the fact that the rest of the source goes on to argue that the Shar-Peis of the present are genetically different from those that were "companion animals for centuries within China". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The PLOS Genetics says outright that Shar-Peis were used for fighting in China. Your claim that Shar-Peis of today are so different from Shar-Peis of the past (based on a single protein) that it's misleading to include them on this list is your original research. Geogene (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Verbatim from that source: This investigation also demonstrates how strong artificial selection may affect not only desired and selected phenotypes, but also the health of domestic animals... Strong selection by breeders for dogs who retained their skin folds into adulthood has altered the phenotype of the breed to the more commonly heavily wrinkled meatmouth type. Thus, Shar-Peis were used for fighting in China. And then, there were "strong"ly-selected changes in phenotype – the outwardly observable characteristics of the dogs – resulting from selective breeding, in the present-day members of the breed. They were selectively bred for skin folds, not for fighting. Also: In parallel, we performed a genome-wide association study to map the susceptibility locus for FSF. So they also looked at the whole genome, but found that the "single protein" was the one responsible for the fever disease. No OR from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As a result of Geogene's confusion, I added more sources above for clarity which further support what Tryptofish has tried to explain, and has done an incredible job doing it. This peer reviewed article, Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography concludes: These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixture with other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication. And guess what? The most recent study published in Science as explained in the Smithsonian article, Dog Breed Doesn’t Affect Behavior, According to New Genetic Research, has done some of the unraveling.  I've already included those sources in one of my comments above. Oh, well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 11:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed by your paper that asserts no ancient breeds exist, because it's WP:PRIMARY and it's eleven years old. This paper from 2019 says, in its background/introduction section, Ancient breeds are a small group of dog breeds originating more than 500 years ago, characterized by detectable genetic admixture with wolves and represent an early stage of dog domestication. Modern breeds, which represent the vast majority of the more than 400 present day dog breeds, originated from stringent breeding efforts taking place only over the last 200 years Your paper that claims breed doesn't affect behavior is also WP:PRIMARY and appears to contradict this source, which is a comparison of behavior between ancient and modern breeds. I haven't spent much time on the question of whether breed influences behavior or not because it has no apparent relevance to this AfD, and it looks to me like a Gish Gallop tactic. But if dog breeds have no influence on behavior, and that somehow turns out to be relevant to this AfD, I think you'll need more than one Primary paper to prove that that idea represents a scientific consensus, because there's quite a lot of studies that say otherwise in the literature, , . Geogene (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to agree, but cherry picking sentences while ignoring context accomplishes nothing beyond validating what Tryptofish said; "And you are doing WP:IDHT", and not just in his case. You've done it throughout this discussion. It's rather bizarre for you to reject a primary source that doesn't agree with you while at the same time your arguments are based on primary sources and OR. Regardless, I've provided multiple high quality secondary sources, including 2022 articles in Science Magazine, Nature, The Conversation, and Smithsonian Magazine, all of which cited recent research that unequivocally supports the delete arguments. Happy editing! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * As with Atsme, I feel like this sub-section of the discussion has gotten past the point where anyone will change the mind of anyone else. As much for the benefit of other editors as for any other reason, I'll provide this reply to Geogene, and then I'll (probably!) move on.
 * I appreciate the four sources in Geogene's post, because they actually do come closer than some other sources that have been discussed, to actually examining behavioral differences between breeds. The Serpell et al. book chapter does look specifically at aggression, although none of the sources actually discuss fighting dogs. What all four sources share is that they are comparisons among breeds: how one breed differs or doesn't differ from another.
 * Now let's be very clear on what we have been discussing here. Everyone here agrees that there are breed-to-breed differences. The dispute is over whether or not there are differences between:
 * Dogs of a particular breed (called "types" by some sources, and "breeds" by others) that have been used for dogfighting, and
 * Dogs of that particular breed as they are today, and as they are identified by the pagenames on Wikipedia.
 * It's important to realize that all four sources are comparing one breed with another, and none of them really compares a single breed as it was a few hundred years ago with what it is today. They aren't about changes within a single breed over time. What that means is that they do not address directly whether or not a breed has changed over time, so they do not refute other sources cited repeatedly here, that say that the dogs used a few centuries ago for fighting are different than the same-name breeds today (although the current breeds may well be used illegally and behind the scenes for fighting).
 * The sources do say some things that reflect on within-breed changes over time:
 * The Nature Communications source contains the passage quoted by Geogene just above. It refers to the stringent breeding that gave rise to modern breeds "only over the last 200 years". That approximately 200-year time is the same as other sources that put the end of legal dogfighting before the modern practice of selecting breeds, so there's consistency about that.
 * The Serpell book chapter has a section that is aptly titled (for our purposes) "What is a Breed?", starting on p. 32. The first paragraph is about early evolution of dogs from wolves and foxes. The second paragraph is about Paleolithic and Neolithic human interactions with dogs. The third paragraph, on p. 33, says:
 * Modern ‘purebred’ dogs are an entirely different story. In current dog breeding circles, the term ‘‘breed’’ refers to a population of closely related animals of similar appearance that is bred and maintained from a known foundation stock through genetic isolation and deliberate selection. For any modern dog to be successfully registered as purebred, both its parents and grandparents must also have been registered members of the same breed, which means that essentially all modern dog breeds are closed breeding populations (Ostrander 2007). The idea of ‘fixing’ the characteristics of dog varieties by genetic isolation and inbreeding is less than 200 years old, having originated from the hobby breeding of prize-winning poultry and livestock in England during the middle of the nineteenth century (Ritvo 1987). In some cases, it is claimed that modern purebred dogs are direct descendants of ancient or foundational stock but usually the genetic evidence for continuity is shaky at best (Larson et al. 2012). In reality, the lines of descent between modern and ancestral breeds have been thoroughly obscured by the effects of arbitrary selection for unusual or extreme aspects of physical appearance combined with deliberate hybridization between existing breed types to produce new, true-breeding strains that combine the attributes of the parental lines.
 * There's that same 200 years, treated as a dividing line when dogs began to be inbred to a very great degree that made them distinct from those that predated the 200 years. Again, other sources consistently put the end of public dogfighting at around 200 years ago.
 * The J. Neurosci. paper states:
 * We also investigated the relationship between these covarying morphological components and the phylogenetic tree. If variation in brain organization mainly reflects the deep ancestry of the tree, with little relationship to recent behavioral specializations, then brain morphometry should be highly statistically dependent on phylogenetic structure (i.e., high phylogenetic signal). Conversely, if brain organization is strongly tied to selective breeding for behavioral traits, then morphological traits should be divorced from the structure of the tree (i.e., low phylogenetic signal). We observed the latter (Fig. 4).
 * That's an actual result that concludes that something (brain structure) changed a lot between breeds during the era of selective breeding.
 * Finally, the Konno et al. paper in PLOS One says:
 * Moreover, the current breeding of show dogs and companion dogs may be also associated with modifying behavioral traits in purebred dogs, an idea that has recently received support from a study on dog’s personalities [39]. If this is the case, then lineage differences within a single breed could also lead to behavioral differences. Since modern purebred dogs have been established through various selective pressures at different points during their breeding history, the domestication of dogs can be considered to be still in progress [20,39]. Further investigations focusing on a more detailed analysis of breeding processes is warranted to elucidate the influence of a specific selective pressure on canine behavior.
 * That commentary is also consistent with behavior changes over time within a breed as a result of present-day breeding selection.
 * All of that is verbatim from the source material. No original research. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

- Comments by other editors continue below this line.


 * After some consideration (this is quite a long discussion, hm?), I vote delete for several reasons. Firstly, I dislike the name, as it implies that "fighting dogs" is a dog type, natural grouping, or something still in effect. Dog fighting is illegal in the places where standardized dog breeding is likely to be prevalent. Also, I feel that an overview of modern breeds descended from fighting dogs can be better dealt with, with greater context, in the Dog fighting article. With better sources, too- not that the encyclopedias are bad, but I doubt they go in-depth into a breed's history, and some of the other sources seem rather questionable to me. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a morass of OR and prejudice based on poor sourcing (much of it not realized to be poor until rather recently). We already have a Dog fighting article, and the salvageable material can be covered there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Absolute original research including by synthesis that is policy. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. as This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. Fails WP:LISTCRIT: Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.  --  Otr500 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete POV-laden OR. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, there's extensive in-depth coverage of this topic in scholarly literature. Dogs have throughout history been both bred and trained for fighting, as of course they still are (and what on earth does the legality or illegality of that practice have to do with anything?) If the use of the word 'breed' is bothering people then they should start a move discussion – a title such as List of fighting dogs might work. No objection to a merge discussion either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep To me, the attempt to contest what sources say plainly by invoking other separate sources about genetic tests is far more OR than the list itself. This is also not a synthetic category. It is a category that is discussed as a group by sources.  It feels to me that some of the delete comments are driven more by a desire to protect the reputation of "beloved family pets" than by policy. I believe this is especially true of the nominator's suggestion that this article should be "salted and not redirected" which doesn't seem to give any policy-based reason for that request.  ApLundell (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Commment what a lot of talk about something very simple and unimportant. Dog-fighting is obviously a notable subject (no one has suggested deleting our article on it, the original nominator merely saying this is a fork). So we either have a list of breeds that have been associated with dog-fighting as part of that article, or we have a separate list article. Separate lists are usually justified when the original article is inconveniently long. Elemimele (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge into Dog fighting Having watched this discussion happen for a while, it is clear to me that a lot of the primary sources presented both pro and against this list would be very difficult to use as part of an article because they require WP:SYNTH to be meaningful. I don't really want to get into the weeds but a lot of the sources presented in this discussion really do not provide good evidence for the existence/non-existence of dog-fighting breeds. This list should really be present in an article where more context and an explanation of the different viewpoints can be provided. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We already got Dog fighting. Agletarang (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN - the list is accurate, and nobody has successfully disputed the fighting history of the breeds on this list. I do not agree that the list is a POV fork. It is not a POV push to create a list of dog breeds which have a history of being used in dog fighting. In the American Kennel Club (AKC) there are 197 dog breeds, and most were not used or trained for fighting. So our list is focussed, accurate, and it is informational. All of the blue links tell us that it aids navigation within the project. There will always be a debate with one side saying, "It's the owner not the dog" - but that statement appears to be historically inaccurate. As stated above, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to ignore the fighting reputation of "beloved family pets". FYI, even AKC acknowledges that some breeds 1 2 have a history in dog fighting. Bruxton (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No one has tried to dispute the fighting history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.