User talk:Mastiffowner

American Mastiff[edit]

Please stop removing references to this breed. Not being recognized by the AKC does not mean the breed does not exist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they are still mixing in other purebred dogs makes them NOT A BREED. Cockapoos are not breeds either. Furthermore - the reality is that they have nothing further to offer the Wiki entry of the Mastiff. So there is no reason for them to be listed under see also... Mastiffowner (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Am.Mastiff Breeders Council[1], the CDC as of 2000 only recognizes purebred dogs (that breed true). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you expect the AM Council to admit they are not breeding true? I have several pedigrees that show that Mastiffs were used as recently as 2 and 3 generations back. There is no way this mix can be considered breeding true. They got around this by registering the Mastiff (as registered with the AKC as an AM with the CKC). The CKC is not a reliable Kennel Club. They are a REGISTRY with no true tracking in place (they even allow a dog to be registered as multiple breeds - whether it be b/c they permit it or simply don't pay attention is still to be determined). I could register my Cockapoo as a Mastiff if I had a couple signatures agreeing with me that it was a Mastiff. And, again...no matter all of this - the AM does not offer any further information on the Mastiff or Molosser type dogs - and should not be listed on the See Also section...See also to what benefit? Mastiffowner (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no consensus to remove all references to American Mastiffs because you don't like them. Please stop deleting the references. If you continue to do so without a consensus, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where am saying to delete it b/c I don't like it? Again, they are not a breed - whether or not people like it...that's the truth/fact based on the definition of what a breed is and what the definition of a mix/mutt/mongrel is. I didn't say to remove all references to them either. They just do not belong as a "see also" listing on the Mastiff.Mastiffowner (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any proof yourself that they do not breed true. It merits "See also" inclusion because (1) the breed exists, like it or not, and (2) it has "Mastiff" in the name. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From that same page (don't like it) "Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in."

There is nothing published (other than FW's and her owners'words) to prove anything she claims is true. In fact the only published things (pedigrees) prove what she says is false. The AM listing presence on the Mastiff page tarnishes the Mastiff breed and aids in the spreading of the false/exaggerated claims of no drool, better health, longer life span, etc of the AM. Mastiffowner (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia entries about dogs aren't limited to breeds recognized by one or another entity. It doesn't matter whether the American Mastiff is a "breed" or not. It's a useful designation for a certain kind of dog, like, for example, Cockapoo or Labradoodle (neither of which are "breeds" either). Perhaps the American Mastiff is in fact no more than a corruption or bastardization (literally even I suppose) of the English Mastiff breed, but it exists and links to it from this page are entirely appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing that makes it useful to the Mastiff section. It doesn't aid in learning about the Mastiff in any way shape or form and it potentially leads to misinformation being spead (that there is another Mastiff that doesn't drool and lives longer - when this is not the case). Furthermore, it is referenced as a breed - which it is not - so again...misinformation is being presented.Mastiffowner (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]