Talk:Boerboel

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boerboel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924025955/http://www.hfs.fo/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HFS/WWW_HFS_FO/UMSITING/KUNNANDITILFAR/KUNNANDITILFARVEGLEIDINGAR/VEGLINNUTFLUTNINGUR/VEGLINNOGUTFLINNFLUTNINGUR/HUNDUK.PDF to http://www.hfs.fo/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HFS/WWW_HFS_FO/UMSITING/KUNNANDITILFAR/KUNNANDITILFARVEGLEIDINGAR/VEGLINNUTFLUTNINGUR/VEGLINNOGUTFLINNFLUTNINGUR/HUNDUK.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dubious - ability to kill leopards?

This dubious claim is referenced to the "1971" volume - can anyone identify which Volume Number of the encyclopedia this claim relates to, so that it might be verified? William Harristalk 09:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Dubious text removed. William Harristalk 21:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Legislation

Hello User:Jln115, as per my message on your talk page, you claim that the SABBS is the only organisation authorised in terms of the SA Animal Improvement Act, No. 62 of 1998 (AIA) to officially register Boerboels, and that the Boerboel is declared a landrace under act 62 of 1998. Here it is here, please direct me to the paragraph(s) that states this. William Harris (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

See: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201411/38188gen980.pdf Jln115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, that confirms that the SABBS is registered as an "ANIMAL BREEDERS' SOCIETY" under the Act, which gives it certain rights and obligations. What about "the Boerboel is declared a landrace" under the Act? William Harris (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I found it myself: Definitions: (xxiii) ‘‘landrace’’ means a specified breed of a kind of animal indigenous to or developed in the Republic. Based on this narrow definition given in the Act, the Boerboel would be considered a landrace FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT in South Africa. Whether it will be considered a landrace for the purposes of Wikipedia has yet to be decided.

Also on your talk page, please refer to the Wikipedia policy about using WP:RELIABLE sources which are WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. Breed clubs and breeder associations are not independent of this subject. They are good for producing breed standards and the histories of their own organisations. They are not reliable for history or purported abilities of dogs. William Harris (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you may edit and remove information wrt to the Boerboel as you please without providing any proof/citations and without repercussion yet you expect me to provide proof(which I have) when I correct your un-cited edits.The Boerboel is a declared landrace under act 62 0f 1998 See attached page 22: http://www.gsdfmembers.co.za/_pdf/List%20of%20Dogs%20declared%20-%20animal-improvement-act-62-1998.pdf Jln115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Jln115 (talk · contribs), the breed does not meet the generally used definition of the word landrace and such that definition should be removed. Further:

1. the KUSA breed standard belongs in the infobox, as the infobox clearly says kennel club, not breed club
2. the breed club information does not belong in the lead, if anywhere it belongs in the body of the article
3. the breed club is an inappropriate source for the claims about its legal status, the link you have provided above is more suitable

I will be amending some of your additions in accordance with the, please don’t revert, if you do we will be forced to take alternative measures that may see you banned from contributing to the page. Cavalryman (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC).

The Kennel Union of South Africa is a registering authority: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201710/41178gon1098.pdf and SABBS is a breeders society (which can keep a register). This is why we seek WP:INDEPENDENT sources. William Harris (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Cavalryman (talk · contribs) The SABBS is not a Breed club it's a registered animal breeders society (registration Number 62/98/B-68) who are the only organisation authorised in terms of the SA Animal Improvement Act, No. 62 of 1998 (AIA) to officially register Boerboels, breeders may choose to register their Boerboels with KUSA however unless they are also registered with the SABBS they may not legally be called, sold or bred as Boerboels. Secondly the document provided clearly states that the Boerboel is a declared landrace under act 62 0f 1998, Im not going to debate whether or not the Boerboel meets your personal definition of a landrace, the fact is it is officially a declared South African landrace and thus it should be included as such on the page. Lastly I don't take kindly to be threatened, I will take this matter further if it cannot be resolved. Jln115 (talk)

Cavalryman (talk · contribs) as per act 62 of 1998: ‘‘animal breeders’ society’’ means a group of persons promoting the breeding, the recording or registration, the genetic improvement and the use of a kind of animal or an animal of a specified breed of such kind of animal, determining and applying breed standards, recommending in its sole discretion the recording or registration of an animal or a specified breed of a kind of animal bred in or imported into the Republic, and who is registered in terms of section 8(7)(a)(i); (vi) Jln115 (talk)

William Harris (talk · contribs) I stated that SABBS the only organisation that can officially register the Boerboel under act 62 0f 1998 AIA, I did not one claim its the only organisation that may register Boerboels. Boerboels registered with other organisation and not by the SABBS will not be recognised under the Act and will legally not be allowed to be marketed, sold or bred under the name "Boerboel" Jln115 (talk)

Well no, a registering authority has far more powers and responsibilities under the Act, and KUSA is a registering authority. Your last sentence is WP:OR - you will need a good reference to support it. William Harris (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

William Harris (talk · contribs) Official statement from KUSA: "The Boerboel is now controlled by the newly formed SABBS - South African Boerboel Breeders’ Society established in 2014- which has replaced all the other Clubs. According to the official website the SABBS “is the only organization authorized in terms of the S Animal Improvement Act No 62 of 1998 (AIA) to officially register the Boerboel.” The Kennel Union of SA still recognizes the Boerboels registered on its books and these Boerboel are welcome to enter and compete at any KUSA All Breeds Shows " https://www.kusa.co.za/images/Gallery/MARCH%20NL%20CBC%20for%20pdf%202.pdf Jln115 (talk)

On this matter, you have convinced me with your research. Also note "Further negotiations between the KUSA and SABBS are ongoing at this point in time." This is because KUSA as a registering authority controls the Boerboel stud book - whether these be "legal" or not. William Harris (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

On the matter of the breed standard, KUSA must take precedence in the infobox as the recognised kennel club for SA - the template belongs to WPDOGS and that is the requirement - however I think that including the SABBS standard in the Notes section of the infobox would be reasonable, given that it is a legally recognised "Animal Breeder Society". William Harris (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The Boerboel Stud book is controlled by SA stud book not Kusa http://www.sastudbook.co.za/dc39/sa-stud-book/breeders'-societies/dogs/dog-breeders'-societies.html Jln115 (talk)

Ok we can do that! Jln115 (talk)

I cannot see why not - they are both describing the same dog. The only difference is that KUSA goes into greater detail, but there is the coat colour. SABBS includes black, but we do not know if they mean the entire coat or only parts of the dog, such as the muzzle. I do not regard it as being a big issue. William Harris (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It refers to the actual coat colour, there was great controversy wrt the "Black Boerboel", the "Black Boerboel" was in fact not recognised by the Registrar of Animal Improvement Act, 1998 (Act No. 62 of 1998) and subsequently the export and sale of these "Black Boerboels" were banned, this led to the SABBS apealing this ruling, after a lengthy court case the SABBS was deemed to have provided sufficient evidence including DNA samples that Black Boerboels were in fact pure Boerboels. KUSA however still does not recognise Black coated Boerboels, this is mostly down to the soured relationship between the SABBS and KUSA and not really about preservation the breed.Jln115 (talk)

The Breed standard of the SABBS and KUSA is basically identical, except for the black coat colour of course.Jln115 (talk)

Breed History

"In South African farms and homes, breeds that were renown for their fierceness such as the boerboel were kept or created as a deterrent to the real or imagined threat of black revolt against white privilege and property."

I've taken it on myself to remove the above mentioned paragraph as the Boerboel was never created as a deterrent specifically for black people(or a Black revolt), the Boerboel was created as a deterrent against predators and humans(of all races). A Dog can't not be racist and thus can't be created or kept to specifically target or deter one singular race. Boerboels have always been owned in large numbers by the non-white community as well. Jln115 (talk)

An expert WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY historical source has been cited, as opposed to your WP:OR belief. William Harris (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

To insinuate that a dog can be racist or was specifically bred to deter a singular race is preposterous and certainly not a historical fact, also this isn't my WP:OR belief as the history of the boerboel is clearly stated on the SABBS website who are the utmost authority on the Breed. Jln115 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement did NOT say that these dogs were racist. The article stated, as you quote above, that fierce breeds were used "...as a deterrent to the real or imagined threat of black revolt..." It appears to me that you are arguing Strawman to a statement that was not made, in order to argue that point and thereby delete the reference because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

A breed organisation is only relevant for the breed standard; it is not valid for the breed's history because the organisation was simply not there in history. Regardless of whatever the "SABBS website" might claim about a particular breed, we have an Associate Professor from the University of Cape Town writing on a historical event in a peer-reviewed historical journal. Whether you personally agree or disagree with it is irrelevant. William Harris (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it slightly hypocritical of you to claim that I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT the statement hence im disputing it, when you yourself have undone edits from WP:RELIABLE sources because YOU WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Two examples of this is when you deleted on several occasions a statement about Boerboels killing Leopards which was cited from the Standard Encyclopedia of Southern Africa, you claimed that this statement was "dubious", then you on several occasions also deleted my statement that the Boerboel is a declared landrace. Secondly I'm not disputing the credentials of the authors of your source however the statement that Boerboels(or any dog breed for that matter) were created/kept as "a deterrent to the real or imagined threat of black revolt" can not be in anyway proven scientifically and is written from the authors perspective and not from any scientific evidence. Jln115 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Your first point above is rebutted on the facts: the record (the edit history in conjunction with comments above) shows that you were making claims, but trying to get you to provide sourcing was like trying to pull teeth. I was the one who had to wade through South African legislative instruments to provide proper sourcing myself. Additionally, for the matter above, it is irrelevant.

Your second point. Even if the source is an opinion, it still meets WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), "...which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic...." You have no right to simply delete it because you disagree with the author. Perhaps you might like to find a WP:RELIABLE source that is WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic that rebuts the author's position and then include it in the article as a counter. (NB: The SABBS member Anemari Pretorius writing on the SABBS website is not independent of the topic.) William Harris (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I included my source as a citation in conjunction with providing you South African legislative documents, You also did not wade through anything as I provided you all the documentation and the exact pages of what you were looking for, My point was however to point out your own hypocrisy of how you handle other editors.

Secondly his opinion is not a WP:NPOV as the author has stated himself that his research is informed by Marxist social history, thus not solely in this case on the breed it self but out of a Marxist point of view, there are dozens of books on Boerboel history with this book being the only one that states that "Boerboels were created/kept as a deterrent against a black revolt). Its not that I agree or disagree with the authors opinion but rather that I disagree that such a (political)statement does not belong on a dog page, but rather on a page related to Apartheid, South African politics, ect ect Jln115 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it isn't OK to edit-war over it, so I've protected the page for a couple of days. Please use that time to reach an agreement or compromise on what should be in the article. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and please do so in a collaborative and collegial manner – accusations of hypocrisy or other malfeasance are unlikely to lead to resolution. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Jln115, thank you for the talk page message. How about this for a more neutral paragraph:

In remote areas of South Africa the Boerboel was used by white farmers to protect their families and property on their homesteads and farms.

Cavalryman (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC).

Cavalryman (talk) That's a good compromise, If you'd like I suggest the following "On South African farms and in homes, the Boerboel was one of several dog breeds with a reputation for fierceness that were kept as a deterrent to the threat of political instability during apartheid."(or something to that end) , As I've stated earlier I would like to stay away from racial/political statements as far as possible as I don't feel it belongs nor does it better this Page in anyway.

I sincerely appreciate your willingness to come to a consensus on this matter. Jln115 (talk)!

I will need to check the first source but I am not sure it makes an explicit connection with the apartheid era. Cavalryman (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC).

In Afrikaans there is a word/saying "vanselfsprekend" which basically means "speaks for its self/ it's obvious" Now it was pretty obvious that the author was speaking about the apartheid era as there were fears under certain sections of the white population in South Africa of a black revolt popularly known as the "swart gevaar", However if you feel more comfortable with your paragraph then i'm ok with it also. Jln115 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not sure the history in the article aligns with the apartheid era so how about:

In remote areas of South Africa the Boerboel was kept by the white population to protect their families and property in their homes and on their farms.

I think that also aligns with the new cited source. Cavalryman (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC).

I'm happy with that! thank you for taking the time to come to a consensus! Jln115 (talk)

 Done. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC).

References

Where to add?

Hey guys, I have found a nice article with video about Boerboel - https://chihulife.com/boerboel-good-family-dog/ Where should I add it? To what section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.barkan (talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully nowhere, chihulife.com is not a reliable source, it appears to be a content farm and none of the authors appear to have any expertise in the topic area. Cavalryman (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC).

Understood, what about this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuLNxVWVxl8 made by same guys, but looks nice.