Talk:Greyhound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dogs / Breeds  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Dog breeds and species task force.
 

"Greyhound running" pic—not a Greyhound?[edit]

Look at the pic of the dog running that purports to be a greyhound, in the "Health and Physiology" section. That animal looks nothing like a greyhound. Greyhounds have a very distinct appearance while running. The dog depicted has legs and body that are too short and stocky, a tail that is too thick, a neck that is way too short, and coloring uncharacteristic of the breed, and in fact looks like a short-haired border collie more than anything. Who added that pic?

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

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

Vulnerable Native Breed[edit]

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

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

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

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

Disputed Comments[edit]

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

Claim 1: racing

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

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

Claim 2: Conditions

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

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

Claim 3: Killings

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

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

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

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

An anonymous user has repeatedly removed these statements with no justification and has now inserted the "dubious" clauses. These items aren't dubious. One can start looking here and here for information; there's lots more available. If the anon person would like to discuss why they think that these claims are dubious or otherwise discuss why he/she wants these statements removed, but otherwise it appears to be vandalism. So I am reverting again. Elf | Talk 20:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
works for me --Ahc 02:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

If the paragraph in mentioned you adjusted as follows you would you be more comfortable with it?
In part due to the fact that some people feel the conditions under which racing greyhounds are kept are inhumane, in the late 20th century, many Greyhound adoption groups began taking Greyhounds from the racetracks when they could not compete and placing them in adoptive homes. Before this, most retired Greyhounds were killed; some still are.
I know it's a small change, but it tones down the statements, and makes them part of the background. My other problem is that this makes the sentence too long, but that could be fixed with more thought. Since all the information is true, and is there in part to direct people to other articles (I'll add a more obivous link to the GH racing article in a moment) that cover the issues in more detail, and in part because racing is what people think of when they think of Greyhounds. The other word I questioned changing was killed but since euthanization is not universal for those dogs not adopted, I'm not sure what another appropriate word is in this context. --Ahc 21:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Missing Information/Possible Example to Assist[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SLH Stomach Problems[edit]

User:Ahc has indicated that Santa's Little Helpers' stomach problems were probably bloat. From what I can recall, the animated character Dr. Hibbert diagnosed this problem as either "twisted bowel" or "twisted stomach". Since I haven't confirmed that either of these two terms are actual Veteranary or Medical terms, I left them out. Anyone feel like clarifying this? Weaponofmassinstruction 18:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I only have vage memories of that episode as well, but twisted stomach is one of the forms of bloat (current bloat article needs work from what i can tell). I know Hibbert didn't call it bloat, but that's common to GH's and probably what inspired the thought. If it bothers people I wont be insulted in the least if the comment is removed. --Ahc 20:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it was "twisted stomach."

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

Thanks for doing the research to sort that out. --Ahc 04:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adoption Links[edit]

I am afraid that if we continue to include a link to every adoption organization in the country, that will overwhelm this article. Perhaps beginning a new article on Greyhound adoption would be appropriate. Mikieminnow 02:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There already is an article on Greyhound adoption, and yes, in general we've been moving links to adoption groups there. --Ahc 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Bitches[edit]

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

External links[edit]

I agree that some links should be removed, perhaps the greyhound-data link could be restored as it refers not exclusively to one subset of the greyhound breed. That site (which I have no affiliation with) actually provides quality information on any type of greyhound, especially pedigree and prospective breeding info. Mikieminnow 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already on the Greyhound racing article (labeled Comprehensive database), which is where I personally think it belongs. If others feel strongly that it should be here, I'm open to other options. The links I removed looked fine to have on Wikipedia, I just thought they made sense in other places (in part because they already were). --Ahc 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Since many of the Greyhounds listed on that site are not of track breeding, the link should be on a general Greyhound entry instead of specific Racing entry. Actually, I'm not sure I see the harm in having this link on both pages...Mikieminnow 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the concensus on external links to (personal) forums and such? They pop up every day it seems, and I'd like some reassurence before I delete them. Edokter (Talk) 13:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm for removing personal links. Here's what I found in a FAQ:

Is it OK to link to other sites, as long as the material is not copied onto Wikipedia?

External links are certainly allowed. Properly used, they increase the usability of Wikipedia. Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a web directory; external links should support the content of the article, not replace it. An article should be more than a container for external links, and the content should not require the reader to leave the site to understand the subject.

Please do not place advertising links in Wikipedia. Commercial sites are obvious, but this prohibition usually includes links to fansites and discussion forums as well unless the site is a notable one in the field. As a general rule of thumb: if you wish to place the link in Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to a site, it probably doesn't belong here.

The current convention is to place external links in a separate "External links" section at the bottom of the article. Sites used as references for the article should be listed under a "References" section, or sometimes placed within the article as a footnote. See Wikipedia:How does one edit a page for different ways to create external links.Mikieminnow 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Size[edit]

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

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

36 kg it's 80 pounds not 90 pounds.

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

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

Article Rating[edit]

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

Ill Treatment of Greyhounds[edit]

I feel there is a complete lack of information about the ill treatment of greyhounds. A search BBC new search reveals quite a few articles about the abuse of Greyhounds. I don't know what its like in the rest of the world, but in the UK, thousands are abandoned and brutally killed each year, as any news site will inform you. Please can someone add something about this, I would but I do not believe i could be impartial on this matter, and any addition by me would be biased.

Maintaining a proper balance in this article is quite hard. Most people (that know about greys) feel very passionately about the treatment of racing dogs, one way or the other, there is very little consensus. There is a longer discourse on Greyhound treatment on the Greyhound racing article. If you feel more content is needed here, go ahead and add it (with references please), other editors will work to protect the neutrality of the content, and you'll learn better form as you go. --Ahc 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Media -> Pop Culture[edit]

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

Mikieminnow 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I felt it better described the section then 'Media' did, as that only relates to thing like TV, movies etc, but certainly not Greyhound busses... At least 'Culture' can relate to anything in life. Edokter 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mikieminnow that 'Pop Culture' doesn't seem accurate. I think I'd rather see us either use something like Cultural references to Greyhound. At the very least I think we should switch to Popular Culture since we should avoid using abbreviations without introductions. --Ahc 14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It is 'Popular Culture'. Only Mikieminnow referred to it as Pop Culture. Edokter 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of how I referred to it, Pop*ular* culture is a misnomer. According to the Wikipedia entry, "Popular culture, or pop culture, (literally: "the culture of the people") consists of widespread cultural elements in any given society". Since we are including references to Greyhounds from different cultures and societies, this transcends what should be classified as Popular Culture. I do like Ahc's suggestion of Cultural references to Greyhound. Mikieminnow 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Americanization" of measurerments[edit]

I'm not too happy with the "Americanization" that just happened. As far as I know, The US has adopted the International System of Units (SI), meaning metric measurments are preferred. I don't mind inches and pound added, but I think we should adhere to international (and US) standards and place metric standards first. --Edokter (Talk) 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not use the International System of Units. Since this is Wikipedia English, written from an American POV, the primary measurements should be in American units. Mikieminnow 12:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Uhm... Wikipedia being an "English Language" encyclopedia does not mean it is an American encyclopedia. Articles are usually written from a global POV from the entire English speaking community. I've asked for some input on the Village Pump. --Edokter (Talk) 13:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Several months ago we converted all measurements to metric since it was my (and others) understanding that metric first was the Wikipedia standard. We've also worked hard to avoid this article becoming any more from American POV then it already is. The policy about measurements was posted at the village pump in response to Edokter's comment is here. It's not as strict as I recall it being, but I don't see a clear reason here not to use SI measure measurements. Since the measurements are still unsourced (something we should really fix) the case of dispute leaves us without guidance. I'd like to propose that since the metric units have stood for several months without problem, we return to them until we can come up with a good reason to pick one or the other.--Ahc 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree with that. We might encounter a problem sourcing the sizes/weights since the Greyhound as a breed has evolved into several specialties. What might be common for a show Greyhound might not be common for a pure racing dog. Australian racers may be smaller (or larger) on average than American racers. BTW, didn't mean to offend when I stated that this was American POV. Mikieminnow 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Last time I tried sourcing outside of the AKC was harder then I expected, although I didn't take as much time to look as I should have. Thank you for agreeing to revert for the time being, I'll do that now before too many more changes get made. I'll try to replace those that were useful since then. --Ahc 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The general rule of thumb here is when the subject of an article is about an American topic, (i.e. B-52 Stratofortress), we use U.S. units primarily and metric units secondarily. When it is about a topic that isn't specifically American, like this one, we use metric units primarily and U.S. units secondarily. Perhaps an article that is about a topic that is of no great interest to a U.S. audience, (like Copenhagen Metro) can omit U.S. units completely. --rogerd 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's input. I had mis-interpreted this rule of thumb and applied what I thought I had understood to the article. I hope we don't go to the extreme of omitting US measurements as many Americans don't have much reference to metric units. Ahc, I think we will find it difficult to establish standards for different types of Greyhounds. Most people who accept the AKC (show) type as standard won't accept race or international type as a standard and vice versa. There is much debate in the Greyhound community regarding correct type, perhaps that should be explored more in the article. Mikieminnow 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

POV edit?[edit]

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

Looks like it's pretty much already taken care of. Take a look at it again and see if you think more might be done. Mikieminnow 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Still feels pretty biased to me. I'm not clear why the paragraph is needed, but if we keep it the pro-senior nature of it needs to be addressed more aggressively. --Ahc 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and took it out. Perhaps information about adopting seniors should be in Greyhound Adoption.__Mikieminnow 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
If someone contributes some there we can think about it. Again, I'm not clear that much discussion of seniors is needed, but that's just my opinion, so I'm open to whatever people add. --Ahc 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proverbs link[edit]

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

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

Ban on owning grehounds in England[edit]

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

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

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

Mac[edit]

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

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

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

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

Temperament (Wonderful pets?)[edit]

"With their excellent temperaments and gentle natures, greyhounds, including retired racing greyhounds, make wonderful pets."

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

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

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

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

Temperament (Ideal Apartment Dogs?)[edit]

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


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

Greyhounds as mascots[edit]

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

I kind of want to get back to this. The sports mascot section is becoming quite cumbersome and bloated. I'd like to remove it or move it to a page of it's own. Any comments? Mikieminnow 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we can replace the entire high scholl section with "numerous high schools"; it really doesn't add any information. EdokterTalk 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Spelling[edit]

Changed spelling of analyses; to analysis. --87.112.22.146 10:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the change? There are two different sources cited, surely the plural analyses is correct?

Picture in info box[edit]

I think it is important to get a nice image of a well stacked Greyhound to put in the infobox. I admit it's nice to see images of contributors dogs, and I'm sure they're just thrilled to have their dogs featured on wikipedia, but none of these pictures are truly proper representatives of the breed. Mikieminnow 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the new image is a slight improvement over the previous, but by and large I think Mikieminnow's right that a better image would be best. --Ahc 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Handling advice[edit]

Twice now the following text has been removed:

As with all sighthounds, Greyhounds should never be allowed off-leash except within a completely fenced-in area.[1] Their strong prey drive can lead them to chase all kinds of (particularly small) animals, and this can - and probably will - overrule any taught recall command.

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

I've done another round of removing advice from this section. I was less harsh than I've been in the past, but some of the information is just wrong, some just inherently bias. Really what this section needs is good copy editing, not more information. --Ahc (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Also if this does get added again be sure to remove 'overrule any taught recall command'. With proper training the dog will look back at its owner for approval before chasing any other animal. Also, with proper training, the dog will not attack another dog. It is quite silly to keep a greyhound on a lead at all time, since they can't use extendable ones and they need to stretch out and run which a normal leash will not allow (unless you can find me a human who can run as fast as a greyhound). 88.109.31.235 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

References

Userbox for Greyhound owners[edit]

I couldn't find a userbox showing ownership of this wonderful and majestic breed, so have created one, as well as a category to help find other owners. Please feel free to use it on your user page, by adding the following code:
{{User:Shamanchill/GryHndUBX}}
Will get you this:

border:black This user has adopted a
Greyhound.


Shamanchill (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Greyhound-horse comparison[edit]

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

Country of Origin[edit]

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

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

The 2nd fastest land animal?[edit]

I believe the Gazelle hold this title, not the Greyhound.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to be missing the point. You don't measures an animals peak or sustained speed by looking at times over distance that include standing starts and bends but if the records for races including bends and a standing start approach 18m/s (which they obviously do as I only looked at 2 tracks and found a 17.8m/s race average) it is patently clear 17m/s is an underestimate of greyhounds pace. The previous cited source of nearly 20m/s going into the first bend was from the racing world and frankly stands scrutiny far better than the sources you have added that no one other than yourself has easy access too. Furthermore your find above re Beef Cutlet is very interesting. I dont have comparable 500yd track records for dogs of that period but it is certain that track records rarely stand for 10 years as breeding improves the quality of dogs year on year. As current records of similar distances on ovals tend to have speeds in the 16-17m/s range it is clear that that the cornering alone takes approximately 0.5-1.5m/s off there overall pace assuming that the dog from 1933 is as good as todays record holders, which is very unlikely, and considerably more if indeed it is not as fast as today's dogs. Given that race times exist that indicate average speeds close to 18m/s and that running bends takes perhaps 1.5 m/s off their pace and the standing start drags the average speed down further it is not only plausible but frankly almost unarguable that greyhounds approach 20m/s at peak and can sustain speeds well in excess of 18m/s for a couple of hundred metres or more once up to pace. And please, don't try and imply that I am making unverifiable exaggerations or guestimates. I am coming at this purely from an empirical point of view by looking at very acurately timed races and from the previously cited source which I have yet seen a single peice of evidence to discredit and much support. Finally I don't see what comparative speed have to do with this. This is an article about greyhounds, they only speed that matters is that of the greyhound. --LiamE (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay this is obvious OR but it just illustrates my point. A bit more digging and I found times for Beef Cutlet in 1932 and 1936 for 500 and 525 yards. The faster of these averaged 16.25 m/s, the other a little slower. Given that the same dog between those times managed 17.5m/s on a straight track over similar distance it can be deduced that running bends takes 1.25m/s from the overall pace of that dog. Given that modern dogs can average 17.8m/s for a race with bends one might expect them to average a little over 19m/s on a straight track. If the standing start were to be removed from the average time the average speed would of course rise further approaching the previously cited entry for nearly 20m/s. How did Denny and co work out how fast greyhounds can run? Were they looking at some old mutts down the park or something because it doesnt look like they were looking at modern race dogs. Given that dogs could run 17.5m/s over middle distance 75 years ago is it really a stretch to think dogs with far faster recorded times can run faster over sprint distances particularly if not restricted by a track? And just to show how far dogs have come on in 75 years I had a quick look at the race times for mine. Despite being a nothing special dog his times for 525 yards is seven tenths faster than Beef Cutlet, an exceptional dog from the 30's over the same distance. To put that in perspective had my dog been put against Beef Cutlet that day it would have won by 50 feet or so. And there is an even bigger gap between the pace of my dog and that of the track record holder of the track he set that time on than there is beween my dog and Beef Cutlet. --LiamE (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I must correct myself after yet more digging around. Greyhounds can not only approach 18m/s for a full race including standing start and bends but exceed it. This gives an overall average for the race of 18.17m/s. It has now gone from I think 17m/s is an underestimate to I know it is. Had this dog been afforded the chance of a run on a straight track as Beef Cutlet did I hazard a guess it would have been a tad faster than 17.5m/s. --LiamE (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Note the verifiable average speeds for races have been shown to be in excess of 18m/s, actual sprint pace without running bends and including standing starts is unquestionably higher. Note at no point have I contended that it is the second fastest animal, merely that c.17m/s is factualy incorrect. I have already provided sources if you care to follow them. --LiamE (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this track is straight judging by the course records and the record holders comparative times at other courses. Can anyone confirm this? --LiamE (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Again after digging around I can confirm my suspicion. The Capalaba Qld track is indeed straight and also grass which removes two of the factors I had previously identified in lowering average race speed from greyhounds true pace in a straight line, that of running bends and sand being a non ideal surface for outright pace. Consequently records for this track more accurately reflect greyhounds true pace. Average win times are typically in excess of 18m/s for quarters with more than a 100 races and the list of fastest times for the track this year here shows 50 times giving average speeds between 18.38m/s and 18.79m/s. Ergo greyhounds can unquestionably sustain speeds in excess of 18m/s. --LiamE (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a lot better than the previous "... speeds in excess of 70kmh"--Richard Hawkins (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC) --Richard Hawkins (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Welfare[edit]

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

Greyhound or greyhound?[edit]

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

What they are.[edit]

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

AKC vs NGA Greyhounds[edit]

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

Live baiting[edit]

There's nothing about Live baiting here, where small animals are tied down, lured, and killed. And this is Greyhound racing, performance enhancing property, and is considered animal cruelty 182.255.99.214 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

True; I think it more properly belongs in Greyhound racing, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Greyhound pic on Norwegian Wikipedia[edit]

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

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Greyhound_running_brindle.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Here it is
The page states the image is on Commons, so every project can already use it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Video[edit]

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

Disruptive edits[edit]

Recently an editor has made a number of blind reverts. These are unconstructive as they are adding multiple incidences of unreferenced opinion. Bizarrely the editor, who generally does not give an edit summary, claims this is because of ENGVAR. However it is unclear how such a policy supports the inclusion of unreferenced opinion. And for the record ENGVAR supports the use of 'British' English because of the early use of colour, see [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.198 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your own edits added unsourced opinion, and were in violation of WP:ENGVAR. Statistically, 99.9% of my nearly 18,000 edits here included an edit summary. No reverts were blind; they were merely an effort to restore a reasonable version of the article to a functional state and maintain higher quality writing, without unreferenced IP additions. Your concerns about unreferenced material should be addressed with the CN template. ScrpIronIV 15:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Your claimed statistics are irrelevant. What is relevant is your unconstructive edits. And to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your claims this is a blind edit without an edit summary: [2] And please not try to confuse the issue with claims of unreferenced material when it has been you adding unrefenced content, and opinion. For the record and to demonstrate your claim of me adding unrefenced opinion is false, here is my edit: [3] This removed unreferenced opinion which you have repeatedly added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.198 (talkcontribs)
Both versions have unreferenced opinions here and there, which I have not just addressed. What I have just done is set the spelling of 'colour' back to the status quo, so there will hopefully be one less thing to edit war about. - MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
My edit removed unreferenced opinion, it did not add. However, I would be interested in your rationale for changing to 'color' as the earliest version was 'colour': see link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.198 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
In your diff both spelling variations are added in a single edit, so it does not establish any sort of precedence. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)