From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

There are NOT two types of Rottweiler. There is a German and American STANDARD, but these standards define what is accepted in confirmation, not different 'types'. The difference being that the German Standard calls for undocked tails, whereas the American Standard does not.Tyoung81 (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should list them? You seem to know a little on the subject Ecth (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As with many breeds (e.g., Border Collies, German Shepherds pop to mind) there might or might not be clearly defined, distinct types. With Border Collies in the U.S., for example, one can point to Border Collies that are successful in the AKC breed ring versus Border Collies registered with one of the herding associations rather than with the AKC, and note that breeders for the former tend to focus on the AKC breed standard for appearance, whereas the latter breeders tend to focus on herding skills, resulting in dogs in the latter category that are less likely to conform to the AKC standard and are more likely to demonstrate strong herding instinct. In German Shepherds, it's generally accepted that European Shepherds' rear legs and hips do not have the extremely enlongated appearance that the American ones have, resulting in fewer hip problems in the European breeds, but it's hard to put an exact label on the types (because there are exceptions in both cases). If you can clearly define and describe differences among various groups and attribute the differences to a well-documented reason, by all means, talk about it. Elf | Talk 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I had many of those dogs, there is a clear demarcation between American and German types. American Rottweilers are shorter on legs, have wider head and shoulders, with a shorter snout, whereas the German breed are taller, slimmer and with the longer snout. They also both have similar, but different temperament. (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Use in concentration camps[edit]

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

I don't know that there's any reason why this should be mentioned any more than their use by any other police or military organization. Any reason why this should stand out, other than the fact that the people involved were nazis? Elf | Talk 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Great... now some biased person is going to try and blame the Holocaust on Rottweilers. Get a grip! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

"the Rottweiler is the number two breed of dog named in fatal human attacks from 1979 to 1998 " - Unlikely to be a Chihuahua[edit]

Can anyone else see my point? I love large working dogs the Rottweiler being one of them. The quote just struck me as being rather amusing....

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Hi bob, I dont think your being a smart ass, if anything I think you and I are saying the same things in different ways, little dogs versa big dogs and the consequences of their attacks - the bigger the dog the more likely the severity of the attack!

- maybe this is a prime exapmle of "you say tom-ateo and I say tom-arto" ?? :DSecretsmiler (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)secretsmiler
I agree we probably are saying the same thing, but in any event, it always ends up looking bad for Rottweilers and other big dogs since their attacks usually have more serious consequences.Bob98133 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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


The material recently reverted from the Temperment section was plagiarized totally or in part from :[1] and/or other pages, so even if substantiated with refs it is not acceptible here. Bob98133 (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


The article originally said this.

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

I have changed it to read as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Carl A Rottweiler?[edit]

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

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

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

nose bleeds[edit]

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

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


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

Excessively positive bias[edit]

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

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

I totally agree that this page is strongly biased in favour of rottweilers. For example, the page appears to be in denial about the number of attacks caused by rottweilers. The following article claims that rottweilers have overtaken pit-bulls as the dog which causes the most fatalities in the US: At the same time, according to the following report rottweilers are the 9th most-owned breed in the US: The only possible conclusion is that rottweilers cause fatalities way out of proportion to their numbers. In plain language, they are dangerous dogs. Yet this isn't mentioned on this page at all, just vague, unsourced generalisations about how any aggressive traits in rotties are the result of bad owners or unsuitable training. Speaklanguages (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting too that the Marine Corps has banned rottweilers from its bases after the fatal mauling of a 3-year old boy: Speaklanguages (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I think this article is trying to counter the preception of rottweilers as aggressive, mean dogs. what the article needs is valid sources describing the temperament of rottweilers, not scenes from movies and tv shows. (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately, on this date, the article is rather well balanced. It is true that there were a number of bite incidents that required hospitalization and a number that caused death, some years back. That was due to a trend that was quite well documented, where people wanted large, intimidating appearing dogs, but never socialized the dog or trained it. I've known dozens of Rottweilers and even more pit bulls (even rescued a starving pit bull bitch), all of which were well trained and socialized. The ONLY problem I ever had with a Rottweiler was from a bitch snapping at my thigh, which gave me a REAL silver dollar sized bruise and minor cut. That was due to miscommunication, as she was beginning weaning of pups, had had a half dozen people examining her pups and after the last was just leaving, *I* came by to repair the family television. It was a warning snap that was misjudged, considering the embarrassed retreat of the bitch and "sheepish" expression. To claim that the article attempts to "makes an excessive, visible effort to portray the breed" is simply tested, reword the comment to say, "This article makes an excessive, visible effort to portray electricity in a sympathetic light". The key difference is, electricity kills more people per year than a decade of dog attacks, GLOBALLY or nationally. If the dog is trained, socialized and exercised (which ALL dogs should be), there is no problem whatsoever. Indeed, when the above is met, the animal is damned lazy.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


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

"Negative publicity"[edit]

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

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

please help with pit bull related articles[edit]

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

medium to large breed?[edit]

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


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

See Wikipedia's article about the practice. Graham87 02:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It depends upon the method used. With proper analgesia, the animal would be unable to feel pain. As for COMMUNICATION use for the tail, you are correct, for non-suggested reasons. For cart use, in the ancient (or a century and change terms) terms, docking was needed, as the tail would be harmfully abraded by small cart reigns and hardware, to a harmful extent, per a history I viewed today and had previously, never considered.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oldest herding breed?[edit]

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

The Rottweiler has a recorded history going back to Roman times. It may be a much older breed. Although I think that when you are talking in thousands of years does it really matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exactly2009 (talkcontribs) 23:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed one of the oldest breeds, in that it is probably the most closely descended from the Roman-era Germanic variety of the Mollasur, which was used for herding, guarding, and dog fighting. This is still using a bit of creative license; it's obviously different; it just retains more of the phenotype traits (except for the much shorter coat). It's worth nothing that while the Cardigan variety of Corgi and the Rottweiler are quite old, the oldest herding dog is the Caucasian Sheepdog. That breed, however, was only standardised in the Middle Ages, as a combination from landrace dogs that were used almost exclusively for herding, and a standard breed mostly descended from them that was used in guarding and light droving. All working dog breeds were non-standard, and quite varied, until the Middle Ages, with the exception of reindeer herding dogs like the Samoyed (which I guess could actually be considered the oldest), the Icelandic sheepdog (very early medieval, standardised due to isolation), and some Sami reindeer herding dogs which were semi-standardised. There are older breeds that the ones that you guys mentioned. We might want to add a slight change in the wording in the article to reflect this, though we don't need to go into this kind of detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

2011 Dog Attack Fatalities[edit]

The sentence "In 2011, of the 33 recorded dog attack fatalities in the U.S., four were by Rottweilers." under the temperament section is sourced from, a website that skews fatal statistics by collecting data solely based on media reports. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, is not peer-reviewed by any academic organizations, and falls under the self-published and questionable source. While should be acceptable to represent the pro-BSL position, it is not a reliable site for statistics. As such, a potentially misleading statement taken from their website should be removed from this article.PearlSt82 (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, that's clearly not a reliable source. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed it. Graham87 11:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Weight Information[edit]

The average/suggested/breed standard weights need to be reveiwed. The information listed in article is not found on the cited pages. DouglasCalvert (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What cited page? Looks to me like there's no citation at all! JoelWhy?(talk)
I was reerring to the FCI standard which is mentioned but not explicitly cited. The linked FCI standard says 50 and 42 kgs on average for males and females. I am not sure where the range of weights is taken from. DouglasCalvert (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Photograph[edit]

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

Removal of fanpov?[edit]

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

Agreed. I'm not going to bother looking back to 2+ years ago to see exactly why it was added; given that there's information that discusses Rotti bites/fatalities from bites, that's hardly a fan's perspective. Removing the tag, but if anyone objects, please post why you believe it is warranted. JoelWhy?(talk)

Editing Rottweiler[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015 accept please[edit]

They are large dogs. John Kwiecinski (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are. NiciVampireHeart 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015[edit]

110-132lb (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015[edit]

I want to edit about health (Bloating also known as Gastric Dilation in dog) Wadhwanjali (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015[edit]


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

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

Tabalizer (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016[edit]

What happens if the page gets deleted? Is it fine ? Thank you. (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016[edit]

Dear Wikipedia why are you not accepting that the rottweiler is a large dog? Please change it back.Fix it up. How come? The dogs are larger than golden retrievers. Please accept. The Golden Retriever is a medium dog. Please is polite. Why are you being rude? Be polite. Graham87 you are blind. Jones you are wrong. Restore. Thank you. Look at KC NZKC UKC ANKC and CKC. 2601:43:0:4A27:9405:ADC9:DDC5:F91F (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks!

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. And remember to cite reliable sources. clpo13(talk) 22:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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


Apparently the description of this breed's size is of great importance to certain parties. Let's see what the sources say:

As far as I could see, CKC and UKC did not use any comparable term, nor categorise the breed in a way that's informative here.

So it seems reliable sources disagree somewhat. Unless anyone knows of any reason one or more of these sources is more reliable or better regarded than others, I'd suggest that Wikipedia can most accurately summarise the sources by stating something like "The breed is regarded as medium to large[1][2] or large[3][4]", with the refs properly formatted, of course. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 02:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in roasting this chestnut. I have made the revision [with one small change = "medium-to-large"] — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  08:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ FCI
  2. ^ ANKC
  3. ^ KC (UK)
  4. ^ NZKC
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Good morning,
How has this IP been able to edit [2] following the protection placed earlier [3]? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Because no protection was placed earlier; a template was just added. It's still on Pending Changes protection. Graham87 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

How can the same page have the fatality information and then that media portrayal bit?[edit]

Obviously the media portrayals aren't lying, if this breed is responsible for that many fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C100:B9D5:8855:5080:E72E:EC35 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know. Maybe somebody wrote the negative section, and somebody else wrote the positive section in an effort to make the article more neutral, or vice versa. It seems odd that the fatalities section refers to "Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs" like they are one breed or two extremely close breeds, when they're not closely related. White Arabian Filly Neigh 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)