Talk:Rottweiler

Working style

Rottweilers are thought to be one of the dogs mixed with border collies and other dogs in New Zealand to create the Huntaway dog which uses a similar working style, force barking charging and sometimes using their shoulders and body to move stock, but being a leaner dog bred also for great endurance. As a current working breed I thought this might be worth a mention, as not many Rottweilers are bred for farm work these days, but perhaps some of their working genetics prevail in that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.172.90 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning the Huntaway here would be fine if there were a reliable source showing the Huntaway was founded with Rottweilers. The first search result for Huntaway Rottweiler is a Facebook post about a Huntaway x Rottweiler cross. The first source to make the claim that the Huntaway was bred from Rottweilers is https://wishbonepet.co.nz/blogs/news/working-dog-breed-of-the-month-new-zealand-huntaway which is not a reliable source.

Whilst German immigrants were not uncommon in New Zealand I have never heard of Rottweilers being brought over and most of the German immigrants were not farmers.

The claim seems to just be from the similar colours but there are multiple other breeds with the colour pattern that aren't (directly) related to Rottweilers. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Temperament, Media Portrayal, and Bias

I believe that this article isn't neutral on the subject of temperament and media portrayal. Citing a story of a Rottweiler rescuing a woman from sexual assault is all well and good, but citing The Omen and a vague statement about media sensationalism, in spite of citations, I feel does not cut it for an encyclopedia.

"The portrayal of Rottweilers as vicious or malevolently aggressive dogs in several fictional films and TV series, most notably in The Omen, along with sensationalist press coverage, has created a negative image of the breed.[24][25][7][26][27]"

If I were to rewrite an article about firearms politics and just wrote that "arguments in favor of gun control are because of sensationalized media" and then threw in a couple of citations from some news articles which present that view, that would hardly be acceptable, because it's NOT neutral, it's in fact even reductive. There's clearly a strong public perception of this breed as dangerous, which cannot ALL be unfounded, and can CERTAINLY not just be casually handwaved like this. Perhaps some regular contributors to this articles have Rottweilers of their own which are loving darlings who have never stepped out of line, and that's great, but remember that your personal experiences aren't a reliable source or even data, and that though you may be a careful and dedicated owner who trains and disciplines their dog well, there are many bad dog owners out there in the world as well (bad people owning all kinds of dog breeds, in fact).

The issue may very well be much more complex than simply "Rottweilers are inherently dangerous!", I do not know, I'm not a canine expert, perhaps reckless breeding and reckless owners make for a high risk combination for this breed, or perhaps it actually is 'media bias', but this article certainly doesn't make a good case either way. I'll close this by stating that this is a harsh subject for me to delve into, as I have always held a strong liking for the Labrador-esque appearance of the Rottweiler, and it feels bad for me to think about them as possibly dangerous because I look at them and can only think of my own Labradors, but I don't feel that allows me to just brush dark and negative things aside just because I don't want to think about them, I simply MUST face my own biases to be objective. 217.209.145.79 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The whole article seems very biased towards rottweilers. These dogs are potentially very dangerous, which can be documented by the long list of attacks towards people and especially children. Just in the UK alone, there have been several cases in recent years.

The wiki articles on various shark species often includes a section about attacks on humans, even though the number of attacks is in fact quite low. So, I think this article should also include a section about attacks. 2A02:AA7:4620:E1B3:3403:ABC2:920B:3441 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Any large dog breed can be potentially dangerous. Whilst Rottweilers and pit bulls are frequently labelled as being responsible for dog attacks; when the criteria is narrowed to actual pedigree/dna results rather than witness identification the rates are much lower.

I'm going to reword it so that it says Rottweilers are frequently portrayed as aggressive dogs in media, I'll remove the mention of The Omen as the reference just says it popularised the breed but not it's image. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Traumnovelle (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle I think its not just the number of attackts. if a small dog attacks a kid, thw kid will be frightened but usually not much more. An attack of a rotweiler is actually dangerous. Taken from wikipedia articles in ozher languages, there are multiple studies that show how much more dangerous Rottweiler (and Pitbulls) actually are compared to othere races. 178.197.219.206 (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I also think that this article may mislead readers. Between 2005 and 2019, Rottweilers are responsible for the second largest number of fatal attacks on humans, 51, or 6.7% of the total. Rottweilers are classified as dangerous, or banned or required to be sterilized in several counties of the U.S.A. Rottweilers have been responsible for some vicious and totally unprovoked attacks on humans: in Australia a woman was mauled by her two Rottweiler pets (in the link there are more examples) and in Italy a jogger was killed by three Rottweilers --To stats or not to stats (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)--To stats or not to stats (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[1], to cite but a few. This bred is forbidden in several countries, including France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Israel. I believe that the article must mention this and warn people considering acquiring a Rottweiler as a pet or coming across one. If the author does not add this information or makes a case for not doing so, I will do it myself.

Dogsbite.org isn't a reliable source: their methodology is poor as it's been well established that media reports of breeds are often inaccurate.

>> I believe we should be discussing whether information publicly available should be included in the article, and not try to discredit sources. The article does not say that Dogsbite.com is not reliable, in fact it reports official data. It says that preventable factors should be considered other than dogs' race alone. I can believe that properly trained Rottweiler, and maybe pitbulls, would not attack humans, but this does not mean that untrained Rottweilers are not more likely to attack humans. Mind that the article does not have a control group, that is a group of trained dogs who did not attack. So, it is speculative and does argues that well trained Rottweilers are not more aggressive and dangerous than other breeds. And even if this was true, are all Rottweiler trained? I don't think so, in any case dogs do not bear the sign "I am not a well trained dog". Furthermore, the observed period and number of fatalities considered in that article is significantly smaller that that considered by Dogbites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by To stats or not to stats (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

>The article does not say that Dogsbite.com is not reliable

It doesn't need to? It's unreliable on the basis of being a self-published source that admits to taking information from Wikipedia.

I'm not sure why you linked that study: it has nothing to do with dogsbite.com, it mentions the unreliability of breed identification, and it makes no mention of breeds involved in dog bites. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Your source on them being banned/restricted in several counties cites itself and Wikipedia, once again not reliable and the list for countries forbidding the breed is not only an unreliable source it's also just incorrect. France for example does not forbid ownership of Rottweilers but instead requires a muzzle when in public.

>> Maybe some sources are inaccurate but why would you not say that this breed is banned or required to be restricted in several countries? When I edit the article I'll make sure the sources are as reliable as possible. IN any case, France does consider Rottweiler as dangerous dogs.

>I believe that the article must mention this and warn people considering acquiring a Rottweiler as a pet or coming across one — Preceding unsigned comment added by To stats or not to stats (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Being considered a dangerous dog is far different to it being banned. It's fine to mention legislation specific to the breed if it can be reliably sourced. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a guidebook. Mentioning breed related restrictions in different countries is fine but it must be cited to reliable sources, I may look into some of these myself but it's a bit hard to find legislation in a language you don't speak.

>> No, it is not a guidebook but it is a widely used source of information and it should be as exhaustive as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by To stats or not to stats (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles shouldn't be as exhaustive as possible, they should contain notable information you'd expect in an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

>If the author does not add this information or makes a case for not doing so, I will do it myself.

There is no one 'author' of this article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and this article will have been written and modified by dozens of different editors. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

>> OK, thanks, I stand corrected. So, I rephrase: if nobody else will mention the numerous attacks on humans carried out by Rottweilers and the restrictions on this breed existing in different countries, I will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by To stats or not to stats (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Health

Hello, new here to Wiki editing. I've come across this article quite a few times within my research and studies with owning this breed of dog, and I've noticed that the Health section does not discuss the neurological issues in which the breed is highly susceptible to. According to the AKC and OFA, Rottweilers should be tested for Juvenile Laryngeal Paralysis & Polyneuropathy (JLPP). This is an "autosomal recessive, hereditary disease that affects Black Russian Terriers beginning typically around 3 months of age. Affected dogs have difficulty breathing when excited or exercised and may have a change in their bark. As the disease progresses, they develop weakness and loss of coordination in the hind limbs which will eventually progress to affect the front limbs as well. They may also have difficulties swallowing which can result in choking or pneumonia." (https://ofa.org/juvenile-laryngeal-paralysis-polyneuropathy/) (https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/rottweiler/) Shainia Lloyd (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to look into the health section myself but Wikipedia's standard for health claims can be found at WP:RS#Medical claims. As mentioned on the page published studies or textbooks published by experts are ideal for health claims. OFA cannot be considered independent as they have a commercial interest and any kennel club cannot be considered reliable for making health claims. If you wish to add these claims you should try and find a study on it although I'll be taking a look at Rottweiler health myself. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Only study I could find about JLPP in Rottweilers is 25 years old and merely identified it in 3 dogs. It was a description of the condition rather than a study on prevalence. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Ddescription" ???

There is a typo on one of the sections, someone please fix this im goin crazy 47.20.211.100 (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fixed; my apologies. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)