Jump to content

Talk:Dog/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Dog Social Intelligence

I've read studies that indicate that dogs are more capable of recognizing human body positons than even chimpanzees and wolves; this apparently includes everything from physical pointing to actual eye signals, and is also present in puppies. Obviously, this represents an important factor in understanding dog intelligence (particularly compared to wolves), and their interwoven nature with Homo sapiens. Unfortunately, I don't have these studies on-hand (lost in a post-semester purge), so I thought I'd throw that out there to perhaps catch the attention of someone who knows what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.188.14 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


Dog abuse

I don't think the dog abuse section should go anywhere, it is vital to raise awareness about animal cruelty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamukaGirl (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

nodles. It shouldn't be done..Kashyap can kill dogs. Whoever does it should be killed. It's just like killing another human. The dog abuse section is wholly without merit. Signs of abuse - the dog is bruised or has broken bones or eye injuries or is burnt oh really? waste of space -JDHannan (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire dog abuse section can go. Need a Dog Laws section instead, with refs to all relevant laws, including animal cruelty laws, BSL etc.--Afru (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with the article

There seems to be a lot of words spelled in the American way i.e. "behavioral" instead of "behavioural", and the word "amazing" next to the picture of three dogs doesn't seem right in an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyre (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually American words are perfectly okay for an encyclopedia. :) - However British subjects require British spelling, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the word "amazing" from the caption.Coaster1983 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point is in complaining about American spelling. Either way, one of us is going to have to adapt. In this case, it's our British (and Commonwealth) cousins; in other cases, it's the Americans. It's not worth complaining about. CsikosLo (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style says, "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial.", and says, "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic)." See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have another problem with the article, it is said that the term "Domestic dog" includes pet and feral dogs. But sadly, the article seems to be concentrating to much on the pets. E.g. it was written that domestic dogs differ from other canids in that they are not monogamous. Sorry, that's wrong. It's not unknown that e.g. a wolf bitch got her litter from another male from her pack instead of the alpha male. Sure many domestic dogs are polygamous but others are not, e.g. Elizabeth Marshall Thomas reported monogamy in her huskies. And to take the feral dogs in account, dingos are domestic dogs too and they are said to be monogamous. If I would have the time I would improve the article but I need to improve the one in my country first.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The info is referenced. It comes from Ray Coppinger, a canid biologist who has studied wolves and dogs for over 40 years. Perhaps his view is relevant, but it should simply be pointed out as a norm, seeing as monogamy in dogs is very rare from personal experience.Dark hyena (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I guessed that, Coppinger is competent and I agree at least with his theories concerning the developement of the dog.Dogs are the worst things everw But I think he might have used "wrong" material in his research. I don't know the dogs he reports about, but I think his focus is very narrow. For instance, I don't know is current opinion of course, he wrote that dogs are not able to learn just by looking at someoon (man/dog). If that's true, how do dogs learn how to open a door if no one teached them and how do they learn social behavior, what they shall eat and how to kill prey? All by own experience? I doubt that. There are two interesting books on the subject by a friend of Coppinger. They are called Der Wolf im Hundepelz and Die Pizza-Hunde; howver they are only available in german language, so it's no use for people if you can't read german. But I also recommend the works of Erik Zimen and Eberhard Trummler, some of their works are surely translated into other languages.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you to add info from those works. Just don't get rid of the Coppinger references, simply point out that they are opposing views, and that there are no definate answers.Dark hyena (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best when the time allows it, as I said my current project is the article in the german version. It's far to short and lacks many intersting and probably essential information, e.g. the whole chocolate topic. I've added the two books I referneced in the article in the further reading section. I know they are in german language but you never know. By the way, do you know the works of Zimen and Trummler? Or better, does anybody who wrote this article? Zimen was also a "star" concerning the wolf so I thought he must have been known outside of Europe. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know nothing of Zimen's work, other than that he once tried to create a sled dog team composed entirely of wolves. He's always mentioned positively by the dog and wolf biologists I've read on. I think it is good we have a non-English source for once. It encourages people to look beyond the box of the English speaking world and see that other cultures have their own interesting scientific studies to share.Dark hyena (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To bad. His most favourite works are "Der Hund" (The Dog) and "Der Wolf" (The Wolf). They are very good, especially the part in Der Hund where he has a short summary about the theories of domestication (mark, that the book was written in the 80s), especially on the theory, that the dog evolved from a dingo-like canid. There I agree with him, that we don't know of any single canid from the genus CANIS after the last Ice Age who realy lived where the gery wolf lived (coyotes and jackals become rare or dissapear where the greywolf is numerous and the dhole [from the genus cuon] lives in a different habitat than the indian wolf [this one might be a species on its own]), or better who survived where the grey wolf lived. I don't agree with him on everything and you should keep in mind that he compared the behaviour of european greywolfs and poodles, so it's better not to generalize, since other researchers reported differently. However, I recommend to search for an english version (there is an english version of "Der Wolf" at amazon) if you can't read german. He also had a few notes about his own wolves, one of them was so tame, that she liked to be around the kids from a nearby school when she once ran away for a few hours. He also reported about wolf-dogs and feral dogs in Italy in the 70s in both of his books, which made me very sceptical about the study a few years about who reported that there is no interbreeding in that country. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw a lot of "some dogs are intelligent in "different ways,"" that's a copout, the fact is dogs like collies are just plain smarter than for example hounds. (Map29673 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Feral Dogs

Something about what is said about feral dogs in the article doesn't match with observations on feral dogs. Actually it doesn't even match with some articles in wikipedia. E.G. the Dingo is a feral dog too and they are excellent hunters, as well as the Carolina Dogs, who even seem to have some unique hunting skills. It's also wrong to assume that feral dog packs lack the social structure of wolf packs, you should browse for "Tuscany Dog Project" (thats a study concerning this topic) and the dogs there, although not completely feral, have a very complex social structure in their pack (check the german version of wikipedia if you like, there's a full article). Also wolves don't form packs on general, in Italy and in Germany as well many packs only consist of the parents, their current litter, and the litter of the last year. In Italy, there are many solitary wolves and many who only live in pairs, as well as quite a few packs of feral and semi-feral dogs who can hunt prey wolves aren't capable of and who are competing or interacting with wolves (depends on the situation). So all in all feral dogs aren't that poor.--168.224.32.15 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The dingo has had thousands of years to revert back to a semi-ativistic state. Domestic dogs havent had that amount of time to become fully fledged wild animals.

While domestic dogs do form packs, there is little monogamy, cooperative hunting, or mutual puppy care.129.12.200.49 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In all cases? If known cases of adoption, care for puppies by aunts (I admit, there is no prove for care by males), monogamy and cooperative hunting. As a matter of fact, these things aren't as common among wolves as most people think. Don't you think, you generalize to much? E.G. Erik Zimen (a famous cynologist in Europe) witnessed no monogamy in his poodle group. Observations by Eberhard Trummler and Elizabeth Marshall Thomas came to different results (the first observed dingo/wolf/dog-mixes and the latter Sibirian Huskies), as well as Guenther Bloch in his studies in Italy (two groups and one pack of near-feral dogs, mostly or entirely mongrels). You should keep in mind, that there isn't much data concerning this topic and it wouldn't be the first time that an observer didn't really observe and just judged by what he/she already thought to be true. Remember, for a long time people thought, that wolves would generally form packs with an alpha on the top and an omega on the bottom of the pack or that dogs would always search the nearness of humans, because "they are born that way". Both "Facts" have been proven to be wrong since at least the 80's, although they are still in the mind of many people.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Laughter in dogs?

It seems like the whole paragraph was POV and/or derived from unreliable sources, so I commented it out for now.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog&diff=189737773&oldid=189712071

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous substances

Other than the danger of toxoplasmosis from eating cat feces, does any real harm result from dogs eating feces? If so, this should be stated. Also, I highly doubt that eating United States pennies is the most common cause of zinc poisoning in dogs worldwide ;-) 82.6.174.71 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I had the same question...why is this in the dangerous substances category since it doesn't appear to actually be dangerous, distasteful as it may be to humans? CsikosLo (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too long; a lot of unnesessary details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afru (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientific classification

Needs clarification and links to Dingo, New Guinea Singing Dog. Both are registered as dog breeds, while recognized as different species than Canis l familiaris --Afru (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Also, on trinomial authority, there is an impression that the scientific name Canis lupus familiaris is by Carolus Linnaeus.

Linnaeus initially, at 1758, classified the dog as Canis Familiaris (feral) and Canis familiarus domesticus.


Linnaeus' classification was revised at 1993 by American Society of Mammologists (as per internet search), and Canis Lupus Familiaris was accepted by US Taxonomic Directory (and by what other authorities ?). While the entire subject needs a long research, article may benefit from a correction for the reason that Linneaus had not classified the dog as Canis lupus familiaris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afru (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin

There seems to be a paper saying that Indian subcontinent may be the cradle of dogs. Blufox (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


speech

Many have tried to change a dogs tones and looks into speech but so far none have succeded

And it's not the first time, that people classify the Indian or Arabian Wolf as the Dogs ancestor. Til now, no one is sure (some still say, that the dog orginated from a different dingo-like Canid of Europe [note there is no clear evidence for this and no other canid since the last Ice Age survived in the same area as the wolf {jackals, coyotes and dhole all dissapear from an area were the wolf settles down, so it's unlikely that there was a another canid in the same area as the wolf}]) were dogs originated or if they originated from different populations, or from one population and later mixed with others.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Smell grammar problem

In the "Smell" section, it reads "although once a matter of debate, it now seems to be well established that dogs can distinguish two different types of scents when trailing, an air scent from some person or thing that has recently passed by, as well as a ground scent that remains detectable for a much longer period." The part I've bolded is the end of one independent clause and the beginning of another, separated by a comma :-O Can someone who can edit the page fix this? 68.101.75.128 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dithered over whether to change it to a semicolon (treating the second clause as a closely-related independent clause) or to a colon (treating the second clause as a list – though of just two items). I looked to Strunk & White (Do not join independent clauses by a comma), and found that they say: "If two or more clauses, grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction, are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon." However, the second clause inthe requoted fragment isn't grammatically complete. The requoted sentence fragment is the second independent clause of a larger sentence which already separates two independent clauses with a semicolon. I ended up rewriting the requoted fragment as , "although once a matter of debate, it now seems to be well established that dogs can distinguish two different types of scents: an air scent from some person or thing that has recently passed by, and a ground scent that remains detectable for a much longer period." I should have paid more attention to my 5th grade English teacher. (I clearly have too much time on my hands today) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Earliest dog domestication

from the article on 'Natufians: 

Domesticated dog

It is at Natufian sites that the earliest archaeological evidence for the domestication of the dog is found. At the Natufian site of Ein Mallaha in Israel, dated to 12 000 BP, the remains of an elderly human and a four-to-five-month-old puppy were found buried together.[3] At another Natufian site at the cave of Hayonim, a man was found buried with two canids.[3] zgarbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.157.197 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that the article currently dates dog domestication earlier than this (between 17,000 and 14,000 BP) but does not cite a supporting source. The Natufian culture article, however, does support the 12,000 BP date with a cite of Clutton-Brock, Juliet (1995), "Origins of the dog: domestication and early history", in Serpell, James (ed.), The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people (2003 reprinting ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–12. I have not changed the unsupported info in the article, but I believe that it would be OK to change the unsupported article info to the later cite-supported date, citing the supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

dogs were not demestacated they were here before human kind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.186.133 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know were you got that number, but in Germany, they found a skeleton of a domestic dog, that is, as far as I know 2000 years older. And that one is widely known.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian references

This article not only uses American spelling. It lumps Canada in with the United States. In one sentences it lists countries starting with the U.K. this way: "U.K.,..., and US/Canada. It should say. "UK.,..., Canada, and the United States. (By the way Canadians have their own spellings, although we put up with American spelling when it's pushed on us. We are a Commonwealth country and are more comfortable with our own spellings or British spellings.) I've noticed Wikepedia articles lump Canada and the United States as some kind of monolithic North America (but ignore the fact that Mexico and the Caribbean countries also share this continent.) Canada and the United States are not the same in many respects. For instance, Mongrel is not necessarily a degrogratory term in Canada. It is used interchangeably with other terms, such as mutt. No offense intended to the animal. 137.186.177.84 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... The article mentions Canada just once; in that sentence which says "US/Canada" — "Based on questionnaire surveys of owners in the UK, Denmark, and the USA/Canada, the median longevity of most dog breeds is between 10 and 13 years.", citing four supporting sources. The first three of the four sources provide info about the UK and Denmark; the fourth source, here, speaks of five separate data sources, which it names as follows:
  1. Vet School Data 1980-1990
  2. (UK) KC Survey 2004
  3. British Owners 1999
  4. Denmark KC Survey 2003
  5. USA/Can. Single Breed Survey Averages
That fifth data source referred to as "USA/Can. Single Breed Survey Averages" turns out to be averages from several surveys which covered dogs located in the U.S. and in Canada, as further described on this page.
I don't think anyone set out to slight Canada or Canadians here.
Wikipedia:MOS#National_varieties_of_English says, "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others." Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) summarizes spelling differences between several national varieties of English. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary article says that Canadian spelling has features of both British and American spellings – colour, centre, and travelling, but tire, aluminum, and program.
As far as WP articles lumping the US and Canada together goes, (Hmmmm....) looking at the various North American countries and territories, I have the impression that the US and Canada are closer to one another in many ways than either of them are to any of the others (Yes, I would guess that the US is closer in many ways to Canada than it is to its own North American territories of The US Virgin Islands, Navassa Island (uninhabited), and Puerto Rico). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reference

Not sure where or if this could/should be included in the article, but I'll put it out there should anyone find any use for it: "As we were walking about, Madame de Montholon drove away a dog that had come near her.--'You do not like dogs, Madam?' said the Emperor.--'No, Sire.'--'If you do not like dogs, you do not like fidelity; you do not like those who are attached to you; and, therefore, you are not faithful.'--'But . . . but . . . ' said she--'But . . . but . . . ' repeated the Emperor, 'where is the error in my logic? Refute my arguments if you can!'" - Napoleon Bonaparte, The Opinions and Reflections of Napoleon, ed. Lewis Claflin Breed (Boston: The Four Seas Company, 1926), 387. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Man's best friend...but his logic can be refuted. She might just detest flees. I don't think it's relevant. Jalemo (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Eye color

I once visited a pet shop in the Philippines which had a white dog with some black spots. Its right eye was brown, whereas its left one was gray. Is this normal? Does this variation in eye color affect the dog's eyesight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.52.18 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


It happens in a lot of mammals (it's called heterochromia), including humans. Not relevant to the article. Jalemo (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term bitch

Why is everyone offended by the use of the word bitch?

Everytime I type in bitch someone deletes and types female. Why, bitch is the correct term for a female canid. I don't use bitch as an offensive word and I have never called a woman a bitch so I don't use it to offend anyone. It is the correct term for a female canid, so would everyone please stop being offended by it. I mean, when I watch the UK dog show they always use the word bitch to describe a female from a male. Everyone can take it offensively, but I will keep on using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundBlast (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 April 2008

actually, i've only seen the word applied for (some) canines, and almost exclusively by "enthusiasts"/breeders. female vulpines (and possibly other fox-like canids) are called "vixen", of course. - Metanoid (talk, email) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
See Bitch, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bitch, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitch, http://www.bartelby.com/68/58/858.html, etc. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
yes, yes, i know the word "bitch" is in the dictionary; but this is an encyclopedia. why don't you go over to Dog or one of the many entries for domestic breeds, and then complain if you're censored? - Metanoid (talk, email) 22:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Metanoid, I was not complaining, I was commenting on a complaint by someone else who was bitchcomplaining about having been censored. Also, this is the talk page for Dog—the page you suggested that the complainer "go over to". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is probably not worth debating about, but I think that the term "bitch" has been losing favour over the past few years, as some people might find the word offensive. Bitch certainly does not add anything to the meaning that female does not convey. Additionally, some people might even be unfamilar with bitch, so using female would prevent confusion. Let's but this one to bed folks.

On another note, does anyone have any good scientific studies supporting spaying female dogs prior to the first estrus cycle to prevent the mammary gland from being stimulating by hormones and therefore also prevent breast cancer. I have heard vets and read many things over the internet, but never have seen any definitive study. Can anyone help.

I think whether "bitch" has been losing favor depends a great deal on one's experiences. As I mentioned below, the vast majority of people I know use the term freely; others obviously have different experiences.
At any rate, I actually wanted to address your question about ovariohysterectomy (spay) preventing mammary tumors. The study everyone references was done in 1969 - here is the citation:
Schneider, R, Dorn, CR, Taylor, DON. Factors Influencing Canine Mammary Cancer Development and Postsurgical Survival. J Natl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969
That study showed that the fewer estrus cycles a bitch had before she was sterilized, the lower her risk of mammary tumors. There are a couple of papers which review the medical literature on sterilization and long-term health effects (both are .pdf files):
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665
Hope that helps! Newcastle (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to find consensus and apply a consistent standard

The term bitch is no more correct for a female canine (not canid) than the term female. The definition of bitch is "a female dog." Thus, Female is the superordinate term, and in the context of canines, bitch provides no further information. Under wikipedia guidelines, editors should refrain from making arbitrary edits. If there is no substantive justification for including "bitch" instead of "female", then female should not be edited. "Bitch" could be edited to "female" if there is sufficient reason for the change. I'll provide three reasons:

  • The term bitch is not in wide use; it is not common language. Most dog owners do not refer to their dog as a bitch.
  • The term is not used in scientific publications; female is used instead. My knowledge is limited to scientific pubs on wolves; I've never seen it there.
  • The term is more commonly used as a derogatory term. From my perspective, the use of this term to mean "a female dog" is all but dead. It is used in a few pockets, including the dog show community and the breeding community, but in the common language of average people, this meaning is almost never used.
  • Wikipedia would benefit from consistency, and "bitch" will struggle to find majority support

I propose creating a standard from consensus that will help resolve future edit wars about the proper usage of the term. To achieve this, I propose changing instances of bitch to female with a link to this debate; that will encourage people who are interested in the topic to come here and help form a consensus. Hopefully we can come to a consensus, and then use that standard for future edits of all dog pages.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the dog articles, here are a list that use the term bitch: Below is a list of the contexts in which the term is used, and whether the page is consistent in its usage of the term. If both "female" and "bitch" are used in the same page, its listed as inconsistent.


The term is used extensively, although highly inconsistently. It seems to be used most in the context of breeding, history of breeds, and show dogs.

(ec) You are not interested in a consensus, you are an edit warrior: "To achieve this, I am going to change all the instances of bitch to female with a link to this debate."
This appears to me to be about censorship: "The term is more commonly used as a derogatory term". You do not explicitly object to "dog" for a male, and you have not stated that you will change it. I haven't checked your contributions to see whether you object to mare, gander, hen, or woman. You claim that "bitch" does not have the same usage that "female" has even among dogs, but the dog fancier literature is replete with counterexamples.
If you were here arguing for consistency in all articles about sexes of animals, I might be willing to engage. But Wikipedia is not censored, and your attempt to push censorship under a guise of consistency does not engender my cooperation. If another editor would like to seek a consensus, rather than censoring and edit-warring, I'd be happy to engage.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Guys, relax. This issue isn't new. I didn't make it up. It pops up every now and then because the wikipedia community has not put it to bed. This week there was a edit war on the Doberman Pinscher site. I didn't play any role in it. Currently "bitch" is being used, and I have no interest in challenging its usage there. I do have interest in bringing that debate toto a central location where it can be resolved. The statement above about changing instances of bitch to female is to encourage debate. Edits are never final; they just force someone else to disagree, and if they do, thats one more person in the debate. If you would like to bring the debate to the multitude of wiki articles through some other means, thats fine.
Lastly, because you guys have accused me of many things, let me say that I have no vested interest. And yes, I am interested in gathering consensus. If it turns out that bitch is used more often than female here, and that the consensus is that it is the correct term to use, I would be happy with consistency dictating that the term bitch replace female on these pages. Then edit wars about this topic will end, because there will be a concrete statement of the consensus which is all-important in justifying these changes.
One of the principles of wikipedia: assume that your fellow editors are acting in good faith. Please don't engage in ad hominem. The only substantive argument above is the statement that "bitch" is common in the dog fancier literature.
--Thesoxlost (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of assuming good faith is reading what the editor wrote, not what you think they wrote. I interpreted your statements to mean that you would change "bitch" to "female" absent a consensus, that you were concerned by the derogatory use of the word, and that you were unconcerned by other species-specific sex terms, even including "dog". I apologize if I misconstrued, but I hope you can understand how my reading of what you wrote (perhaps in contrast to what you meant) would lead me to the conclusions I drew.
With respect to "This week there was a edit war on the Doberman Pinscher site," that seems to be a bit overblown. An anon changed "dog" and "bitch" to "male" and "female", with no edit summary. I reverted, with an edit summary. I have made many such reversions in the past. To the best of my memory, no similar change by an anon has ever had an edit summary, and my good-faith assumption has been that these anons were not aware of the proper uses of the terms and were shocked by "bitch".
My edit was reverted by ImperatorExercitus, a user whose primary contributions recently have been reversions of vandalism. I suppose that reversion of an edit by a named account, with an edit summary, to the edit of an anon, without one, could be construed as edit warring, but I'm willing to assume good faith. Pigsonthewing reverted back, with an edit summary.
IMO, because the terms "dog" and "bitch" are widely used in the dog fancier literature, and among all dog fanciers (not just breeders), it is useful to readers of Wikipedia to use the terms correctly. But I understand the value of consistency. If this were a discussion of all species-specific sex terms, rather than a referendum on "bitch", I'd feel a lot better about it (although this is probably not the right venue...I hesitate to suggest MOS). And "bitch" isn't the only one with an eyebrow-raising alternate meaning; there's also cock.
I'd also feel a lot better about this if there were more than just the two of us talking here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
A bit late, but I agree with Curtis Clark. The word "bitch" is entirely appropriate in reference to a female dog, and should be used interchangeably in Wiki articles just as it is in real life, among fanciers, owners, exhibitors, breeders, etc. As CC also pointed out, if you're truly after consistency you'd need to change every gender-specific use of "dog" to male, and change all uses of (among numerous other things) mare, stallion, bull, cow, sow, ewe, hen, rooster, to "male" or "female", as the case may be. If you propose that, and get consensus on it, I'd agree to remove "bitch" from the Boxer article; until that point, I see no reason at all to change things.
Newcastle (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not late. As long as people throw in their opinions here over the next months or years, consensus will eventually be found.

The insistence that in order to be consistent, we would have to change all uses of dog to male really supports my point. On wikipedia, dog is not used in the technical sense that indicates gender. Dog is the common use English term used to specify members of the species canis lupus familiaris regardless of sex. Just look at the dog article. Where is the term dog being used in a gender specific fashion? I am arguing that common-use words be used except in cases where the technical usage of dog and bitch would be more appropriate (e.g., when discussing breeding or showing). Each of the terms you used above are in common usage. Can you really argue that bitch is in common use? What percentage of dog owners do you know that use the term (without implying the derogatory meaning) to refer to their own dog? Personally, I know no one who uses it. --Thesoxlost (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another place where it is commonly used is in breed standards, and in fact there are few other reasons to distinguish the sexes in articles on specific breeds (one exception is temperament). Most of the "dog people" I know use "bitch" in a non-derogatory sense to refer to their own bitches. Admittedly the percentage is much lower among dog owners who are not "dog people", and I suspect the use of "bitch" in the classical sense is an example of a sociolect.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
"Dog" certainly is used on Wikipedia to indicate gender. In the Boxer article, for example, it is used in the "Early Genealogy" section. Other articles (from your list above) with gender-indicating "dog" usage include Best of Breed, German Spitz (Klein), Curly Coated Retriever, Border Collie, American Cocker Spaniel, Polish Lowland Sheepdog, Irish Terrier (I didn't check the ones specifically about breeding/reproduction) - and in fact, the Dog article specifically points out that a male canine is referred to as a "dog".
And yes, I would argue that "bitch" in reference to a female dog is in common use - 90% of the dog owners I know use it interchangeably with "female" or "girl", as do the breeders, exhibitors, veterinarians, groomers. (Since I'm involved in numerous international dog forums, I'm speaking of worldwide use, not just in my local area.)
At any rate, until others weigh in I guess we're at two to one against. Is there a guideline as to how long these discussions remain open without input before consensus is declared? (And at that point do you go back and replace all the instances of "bitch" that you changed to "female" before this discussion occurred?)
Newcastle (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In the article Dog, the title is used to refer to the species of both genders. In one sentence, in the definition section, it states that in breeding circles, the term is also used to indicate a male. But for every article title that includes the word dog (e.g., Dog, Dog breed, dog communication, dog society, Dog fancy), and a vast majority of the instances of the term on wikipedia, the term is used in the colloquial sense to refer to the subspecies. I understand that in maybe 2% of its usage, it is gender specific. In a majority of those cases, it is used in the context of breeding or dog shows. Elsewhere, where normal people--Joe and Joe Sixpack--who own dogs but dont breed them and don't show them, the term is rarely used.
If you truly believe that 90% of dog owners use bitch in commonly, in everyday speech, to refer to their own dogs, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I have never, ever, heard someone say "This is my bitch, Daisy. Isn't she a beautiful bitch?" Never. People always say "This is my dog, Daisy," or if you say "He's a beautiful dog," i've never heard someone say, "She's a bitch." They say "It's a she," or just correct you with "She." If 90% of the people you know do say things like that, well, we have very, very different experiences.
I don't know of any wiki guidelines. Nothing is happening in the meantime. I aggravated two pro-bitch people by changing the pages. If people care, they will share their opinion. As is, if anyone changes a use of "bitch" to "female," I think you could revert it and point to this page. I think this thread is a reasonable one to use as the standard for all dog-related pages that could use the term.
--Thesoxlost (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think we do have very, very different experiences. :) I just can't think of any reason to not use the term on Wiki in reference to a female dog. Your reasons don't hold true for me, obviously: you say it's not in common usage, but in my experience it is; you say it's not used in scientific publications on wolves, and that may well be true, but a quick search of PubMed shows almost 1,000 published studies which use the term, from 1906 all the way up to a January, 2009 journal; you say the word is often used in a derogatory manner but so are numerous others, and again in my experience it is not commonly an insult; you mention consistency as a reason to stop using the word but then state that you have no problem with it being used in reference to breeding or showing (which is primarily how it's used in articles at this point anyway) which destroys the consistency aspect.
Sorry, I don't mean to harp on about this, I'm just trying to understand your point of view and hopefully help you understand mine.
Newcastle (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of the word "bitch" is context specific, like all words. If you are talking about a machine you can't get to work, or something else that has annoyed you, or if you are talking about a person it has the derogatory meaning. If you are talking about a dog, it doesn't. Of course the word "dog" needs to be used with because it is more difficult to differentiate the two most common meanings. In my experience (I am not a "dog person") the word "bitch" is fairly common with this meaning and I don't think it will confuse people, especially when it explained. "Female" is also common, but the most common term would be "girl" - the diminutive is not surprising when talking about well loved animals, but is not really suitable in an encyclopedia. Note that donkey uses Jack and Jenny_(donkey) quite freely despite these being rather unknown words. Thehalfone (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we know a couple things from social and cognitive psychology: (1) if a word has two alternative meanings, we process both meanings simultaneously; (2) if that meaning is associated with a trait (say a negative or hostile trait), it automatically colors our perception. See http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1983-07893-001

Its just one of many, but this study shows that subconscious priming of hostility causes subjects to rate behaviors and people as more hostile. In this context, the negative traits associated with the dominant (derogatory) use of the word "bitch" will bias our perception of female dogs. Similarly, the use of the word niggardly activates more meanings than "stingy" that one would be wise to avoid.

Also, those who complained about censorship, read WP:profanity.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...and "dog" has no negative connotations?
My perception is colored when I see "female" used in a summary of a breed standard for dogs: I assume it has been sanitized, and that there is no assurance that it accurately represents the original document in any respect. Note that this is my perception; in many cases, I would find it hard to get evidence to back it up.
To call the use of "bitch" in a dog article, especially when used in reference to a breed standard, and most especially when the breed standard uses the word, profanity cannot be seen as anything but censorship.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

just a quick note. reference number 59 states that jesus is quoted as calling non-hebrews dogs. This is incorrect as ANY casual reading of the referenced source will show. check it on http://www.blueletterbible.org/ using the cited passage Mark 7:24-30 using ANY version of the bible you like. At any rate, what is this doing in an article about dogs anyhow? totally irrelevant. Zuck (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree after reading the source. I've removed that sentence. Franamax (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah that is so not true ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone wrote "hellooo" in tne introductory paragraph. I can't edit because of the semiprotection status, but someone should take care of this tiny little nuisance.MosKillinest (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Please Remember

Please remember that this is not a social network. That means do not say things like " email me if you know how to help" or "if you have options that could help with my problem fell free to call". The reader want to know about the object, in this case about dogs. They do not want to know about the stories of your dogs or what happend to your dog. Please provide accurate information aboput the subject you are talking about. Reminder- Children use this site for school,there has to be accurate information for them. If you do not know a lot about the subject then do not fix things and type things about it in the paragraphs. Wikipedia is being told not to be used in the schools because of its lack of accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.21.14 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 24.63.21.14. This not the place to post things about your dog; millions of dogs are like that, and yes, saying things like, "e-mail me at_____" is not appropriate. People do not want to read what happened to a dog. They want real information; however, the answer could be hidden in a google search. Don't rely on wikipedia to help you woth such problems, as in repeated edits can get you blocked.

No regurgitating of food?

In the article, it was stated, that domestic dogs, do not regurgitate food for their young. This is certainly true in many cases, however, I wouldn't be so sure if that is really the norm since there have been documented cases where the bitches did it. I corrected this part of the article and referenced my sources. The sources are in german so I would be happy If somebody knew the english titles of the books.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do dogs wash their faces like cats do?

I have a dog and I also have 2 cats; a friend noticed my dog grooming himself, and when my dog was washing his face, he thought that the dog had picked up this grooming trait from my cats. My dog licked one of his paws then washed his face with this paw. Is this normal dog grooming behaviour or has he adopted it from the cats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.97.0 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussions about the article itself. If you have any general questions, you should take it to our Reference Desk. Thank you! Paragon12321 05:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

South Orange County

In the portion about predation of Dogs, it should say, "South Orange County, California" for clarification. I live in Orange County, Florida, and believe it or not, coyotes are in Central Florida too. Jalemo (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


"Dog poison" request for improvement in details and cites

The cite only covers grapes, and there seems to be a lack of reliable references. Moreover having seen people worried over a drooped square of chocolate some context would be good:- "20 ounces of milk chocolate—or only two ounces of baking chocolate—can cause serious problems in a 10-pound dog."[1] - basically a dog eating over 10% of its body weight in chocolate. (The same paragraph describes "pancreatitis, an inflammatory condition of the pancreas." - which in WP would I hope become "pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas).)"

  1. ^ http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pro_apcc_faq#chocolate

Rich Farmbrough, 17:43 30 August 2008 (GMT).

I've edited that part of the article a bit, attempting to improve the cites. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Health

Neutering male dogs between 6 and 8 months of age reduces there chances of prostate cancer. Never in all my experience as a veterinary technician have I heard or seen neuterd males be more at risk for prostate cancer due to sterilization. 71.102.130.175 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are the citations for that statement.
Bell FW, Klausner JS, Hayden DW, et al. Clinical and pathologic features of prostatic adenocarcinoma in sexually intact and castrated dogs: 31 cases (1970–1987). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991;199:1623–1630.
Weaver AD. Fifteen cases of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. Vet Rec 1981;109:71–75.
Teske E, Naan EC, VanDijk EM, et al. Canine prostate carcinoma: epidemiological evidence of an increased risk in castrated dogs. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2002;197:251–255.
Sorenmo KU, Goldschmidt M, Shofer F, et al. Immunohistochemical characterization of canine prostatic carcinoma and correlation with castration status and castration time. Vet Comp Oncol 2003;1:48–56.
Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goulland E. The infuence of castraion on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog: 43 cases (1978–1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987;1:183–187.
Leav I, Ling GV. Adenocarcinoma of the canine prostate gland. Cancer 1968;22:1329–1345.
Durham SK, Dietze AE. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with and without metastases to bone in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1986; 188:1432–1436.
Also see the links posted above:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665
Newcastle (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

World oldest dog dies

Here's a story link. I'm not a regular editor here and it looks like if I added it to External links it might not have survived. 5Q5 (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053471/The-worlds-oldest-canine-dies-age-203-thats-dog-years.html

Consider changing the top picture

It's only personal opinion, but my first thought was that (even though on looking closer it doesn't look this way) the dog looks very aggressive, giving dogs a bad view.a dog is a mix Teancum (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Small (but big) number problem

.50]] (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dog saliva

Isn't it true that dog saliva has curative properties? They're often seen licking their own wounds, and there are tales abound about people who let their dogs lick their wounds, which healed faster than you can say "Neosporin". If it is indeed true, it should be added to the entry. Whitereflection (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dog saliva, like many saliva present a strong concentration of antibacterial properties, hence can be considered as curative.

--200.73.30.108 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)--200.73.30.108 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

heading

as i'm sure everyone has noticed the heading is completely nonsensical. Yosh76063 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the article was vandalized. I have restored the article to a previous version. --Coaster1983 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


More Ancient Dogs Discovered

The remains of dogs dating to 31,700 years ago found.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1078803/Mans-oldest-friend-Scientists-discover-grandad-modern-dogs--31-700-years-ago.html

Calypsoparakeet (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


The puppy article...

...seems quite pointless. It seems to me that the only reason the article even exists is because it's a seperate word. If the article had to be titled Baby dog nobody would have felt the need to create it. Everything in the article is true to dogs in general. Its talk page is also the most pathetic talk page I've ever seen. If Puppy were to be turned into a redirect to Dog, would the action be supported by the community?--Remurmur (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The puppy article hardly warrants it's own page. The problem with a redirect to dog is you'll orphan puppy (disambiguation). You'd be in the slightly awkward position of having to put a link to puppy (disambiguation) at the top of the Domestic Dog page. Lastly, Talk:Puppy is absolutely hilarious. Solid gold. There is actually a serious argument there about whether puppies are cute. They are citing references! Like a sunset or a rainbow, that talk page is a beautiful thing. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are two simple options. One, we make Puppy the disambiguation page. Or two, we add a hatnote to Dog that says "Puppy redirects here, for other uses see Puppy (disambiguation).--Remurmur (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I would have agreed with the redirect if I had not examined the article and talk page histories. I found this diff in which the birth and development section was removed with no explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. I restored the section and I feel that the article is substantial enough to not be redirected. Having said that, the article does need to be expanded. One thing that is sorely lacking in the article is the inclusion of wild canines, such as the grey wolf and the coyote, and an explanation of the differences in developmental growth between each of the speciees.
As for the talk page, I removed the vandalism and nonsensical comments. I also restored two discussionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog&action=edit

Editing Talk:Dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that had been mangled by nonsensical comments and vandalism. --Coaster1983 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of the new section, should the information perhaps be merged into Dog? Or, if it is decided that Puppy should be kept, then the Dog article needs to link to it in some way.--Remurmur (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the page be deleted, with its information merged into a couple of other pages, which are cross-linked.

The only encyclopedic information worth saving on the puppy page is the birth and development section, which is specific to domestic dog puppies. There is some information about canis lupus puppies at Grey Wolf. The puppy disambiguation page should point there. There is also a page on canine reproduction that is largely overlapping with this page. Perhaps the relevant information from this page that is not in the canine reproduction page can be moved over, and links can be added to the dog page and puppy disambiguation page. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Dog → Domestic dog — Rationale : Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). This page is page is about the Canis lupus familiaris and not just about the genus Canis. Mouse and House mouse are two different Wikipedia articles and the same should be with Dog and Domestic dog. Has anyone seen a scientific paper on the genetic of "dogs"? I haven't. It's either testing done on the Canis genus or only on the Canis lupus familiaries species.[1]. Mieciu K (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC) — Mieciu K (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

*Strong support- completely logical. It has my full support. Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic, University of Pennsylvania ,scientific paper on domestic dogs, no biologist or genetic scientist would use the term "dog" and "domestic dog" as synonyms.Mieciu K (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Those links do not challenge what is the universally accepted encyclopedic name. There is a consensus of all major encyclopedias and we should stick with encyclopedic standard. M0RD00R (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And your links do not challange that scientists use the term "domestic dog". There is already a Simple English Wikipedia, there is no need to simplify this Wikipedia. Mieciu K (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Neither Brittanica, neither Encarta, neither Columbia Encyclopedia are Simple English encyclopedias, they are English encyclopedias, so is English Wikipedia. Encyclopedic standartd is obvious, there is no need for wheel reinvention. M0RD00R (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. "Domestic dog" is unclear; it may or may not include other dogs, such as the dingo. "Dog" is an absolutely unambiguous reference to all dogs (in English, anyway, and this is English Wikipedia) as opposed to wolves, foxes, etc. --Hafwyn (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The article disagrees with you: "The term [dog] encompasses both feral and pet varieties and is also sometimes used to describe wild canids of other subspecies or species." The move would remove such ambiguity. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Why would you want feral dogs and subspecies removed from the topic of Dog? This is an incredibly silly waste of time. The more general term is the best one, the one the general reader (not scientists) will be looking for. Otherwise you are just promoting a lot of redirects for no reason. --Hafwyn (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - rather, the article should include a section on feral dogs. Franamax (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is long enough as it is. I'm trying to get it to GA status, and adding more information is going to make it just that little bit harder. A section on feral dogs will just use up space. Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 21:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
So adding information to an encyclopedia article is antithetical to your personal goals? Why is that of interest to me? Feral dogs are quite germane to the topic of dogs, and are discussed already in the article. Do you wish to instead create Pet dogs? Franamax (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And to expand that a bit: dogs as a life form have been shaped by humans but exist independently of humans. Take away the humans and there will still be dogs, thus they don't exist as a subset of humanity, which is what the "(domestic)" label implies. The dog in general deserves treatment, with obvious weight towards breeds and domestic uses. Nevertheless, once they run away, they are able to maintain their own existence. Franamax (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Speculation: If people were to suddenly go extinct in most continents the domesticated dogs would go extinct in a matter of decades, as they would not stand a chance competing with wolves. Mieciu K (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant (and unlikely; a spaniel has a different ecological niche than a wolf, and a Rottweiler may well hybridize). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, don't count those cute spaniels out, I'd wager they can hybridize with the best of 'em ;) Franamax (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs

  1. ^ Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog, SCIENCE, VOL. 276 13 JUNE 1997
  2. ^ Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Order Carnivora". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 532–628. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dog meat in Switzerland

The single reference used as a source for the content on the consumption of dog meat in Switzerland is an entry on a blog, which itself refers to two other articles, one in Chinese and another that no longer exists at that URL. As a result, this content is not properly referenced under WP:RS and I'm removing it. Mr. Darcy talk 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog/Archive_4&oldid=1136667033"