Talk:Dog/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Early Spaying

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)

the article currently reads "In fact, there is evidence that spaying females prior to their first heat cycle." and then drops the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.191.62 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2009 (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)

(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)

Push for GA status

This article is pretty close to being ready for nomination for GA standing. There are few more issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps interested editors could post new issues or try to fix them. Here is an initial list, put together in a peer review by Dana Boomer, and greatly modified by thesoxlost:

Pending

• tags: Spaying & Neutering
• Make sure that all of your web references have publishers and last access dates. Also, please make sure that you are actually using the publisher, and not the work. For example, with current ref #41 (The Case for Tail Docking), the publisher should be Council of Docked Breeds, not cdb.org.

Partially Addressed (possibly resolved)

• The article is a bit bloated. It should be shortened in places; some relatively trivial sections could be deleted.
• Referencing greatly improve. Still could use a little work: Disorders & Diseases; Dangerous Substances; Overpopulation; Dog communication
• There are a lot of short sections in the article. For as many of these as possible, please either expand them or combine them with other sections.

Resolved

• There are several sections in the article (Working, utility and assistance dogs, Show and sport (competition) dogs, Dangerous substances) that are composed almost completely of lists. MOS discourages lists in articles, so these should be turned into prose as much as possible.
• Please make sure that the discussion regarding naming is completed and the decision is finalized with consensus one way or the other before you nominate for GA status.
• There are two citation banners in the article, both for lack of inline citations, and both were placed there several months ago.
• There shouldn't be external links in the body of the article as there are at the end of the Ancestry and history of domestication section. Instead, these should be turned into references, moved to the external links section, or removed altogether.
• References that are in English do not need to be marked as such. References that are in any language other than English do need to be marked.
• Current ref #70 (Wolf at my door) deadlinks.
• The Australian National Kennel Club external link deadlinks

--Thesoxlost (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict between Dog and Gray Wolf articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf

The Dog article says that the Domestic Dog is a subspecies of the Gray Wolf. That is to say, the Gray Wolf is a species with several subspecies, of which the Domestic Dog is but one. The Domestic Dog, then, is a subset of Gray Wolf. All Domestic Dogs are Gray Wolves, but not all Gray Wolves are Domestic Dogs. (Forgive my caps, which I have included for clarity.)

The Gray Wolf article states in one place that the Domestic Dog shares ancestry with the Gray Wolf. Elsewhere, it states that the Gray Wolf is an ancestor to the Domestic Dog.

The ideas presented in the two articles are not, under close analysis, compatible. If the set A is ancestral to the set B, then the set A cannot also include the set B.

I think we need to pick a winner on this one, and stick with it.

Ordinary Person (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ordinary, I responded over at Talk:Gray Wolf. These statements are not contradictory. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I came across a google book also addressing the ancestry, which came up with cladistic analysis that described the wolf as a special type of dog as well as some species of jackal. The reference to the book I put in with brain size. James Serpel, The Domestic Dog.

It is stated there that coyotes. jackal,african wild dog, dog breeds and wolfes cannot be considered true species. The cladistic trees are quite complicated and surprising.Viridiflavus (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutering

The passage on neutering previously read:

It is not necessary for a female dog to either experience a heat cycle or have puppies before spaying, and likewise, a male dog does not need the experience of mating before castration. In fact, there is evidence that spaying females prior to their first heat cycle influents the animal development differently that after the animal reaches sexual maturity. Female cats and dogs may be more likely to develop certain reproduction organs deseases, mostly breeding-specific, such as Canine_venereal_sarcoma, Brucellosis etc, if they are not spayed before their first heat cycle. Also, fertile dogs have higher chances to develop some forms of cancer, affecting mammary glands, ovaries and other reproduction organs (author=Morrison, Wallace B.|title=Cancer in Dogs and Cats (1st ed.)|publisher=Williams and Wilkins|year=1998|isbn=0-683-06105-4). However, spaying or neutering very young animals, also known as early-age spay, can result in increased health concerns later on in life...

I deleted the part in bold, because it's confusing and I can't work out what side it's arguing ("In fact, there is evidence that spaying females prior to their first heat cycle influents the animal development differently that after the animal reaches sexual maturity"?). According to the RSPCA (http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/Page/RSPCAContentTemplate&cid=1152286830457&articleId=1152286835649) and other reliable sources, it is a myth that either a female or male dog will have health problems if neutered before mating. If the part I deleted is an example of a credible opposition argument, or otherwise, then by all means put it back, but please make it coherent. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, section is looking rather better now. Thanks. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Still, somewhat confusing and has a few same looking statements. We may a bit re-plan it by sorting early spay, health "pros", health "cons" and behavior changes per se, a subject per paragraph?--Afru (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did a rather ruthless edit, trying to keep pros and cons to their respective paragraphs, as suggested. Hopefully everything is really clear now. I hope I got all the references in the right place and understood them correctly. If I didn't, please fix it. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote that was trying to explain the reduced risk of Mammary tumors. "dogs spayed before their first heat have 0.5 percent the risk of intact female dogs, and dogs spayed after just one heat cycle have 8 percent the risk."

I don't know if the recent edits and rearrangements caused this but, ref 79 does not back up the point about health concerns latter in life. 80 is a breed specific study and compares neutering at 6 months, not related to early neuter. But the point about hip dysplasia can be cited to 79, although 81 indicates no association with any musculoskeletal problems. 81 does not mention anything about female risk of incontinence, that is 79. And 79 recommends at least 3 months, not 6.--Dodo bird (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original section on early spay increasing risks in both sexes, and included WP:RS that specifically support the statements that (1) females have increased risk of urinary incontinence as a result of early spay; and (2) that early spay affects developmental hormones which result in both males and females growing larger than dogs that were neutered at 6 months or not at all. This increases the risk of hip dysplasia.

Yes, it is a myth that dogs gain any medical benefit from going through a heat cycle before being spayed/neutered. But it is not a myth that early spaying (e.g., spaying at 8 weeks) does have long term health consequences. This is relevant because it is becoming an increasingly common practice at shelters to spay/neuter all animals that are placed in homes, regardless of their age.

In the meantime, the section has been serially butchered until the claims became ambiguous and poorly referenced; editors change one word at a time, leading to contraversies that resulting in wholesale deletion of claims--throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please don't simply delete the section; look over its history and try to recover the valid statements and associated WP:RS. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I would rather the section be fixed than removed, which is why i left a message here. But it's been almost a month and no one(including me) was willing to try to fix it. Removal is what I'm willing to do at this point.

There is too much weight given to the downside of early spay neuter given that most studies conclude that it is safe or that there are more benefits than risks. (1) is true but (2) is less clear. The Spain study reports increased risk of hip dysplasia but say they are of a less severe form. It also shows no increased risk of arthritis(which is important given its association with hip dysplasia) and long bone fracture. The Howe study showed no correlation between age of neutering and musculoskeletal problems. --Dodo bird (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

aggression in spayed animals

I seriously question this finding. The only place it has been reported is in a lecture at a conference, and the only record are the slides from that talk. There is no discussion of the evidence, no presentation of the results, no explanation of the methods, no operational definitions provided, no opportunity for peer reviewed, and no context provided (e.g., the author saying "these data are preliminary", or "For breed X only"). Furthermore, it hasn't appeared in a scientific journal since it was presented in 2006, which raises serious questions about its validity. This source does not strike me as WP:RS. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced by dealing with a few cases of abrupt negative behavior changes in dogs after neutering, and the symposium materials provide the statistics that about match real life experience (IMHO). The reference in the article is a link to a document containing a fairly simple explanation in a plain language. This is a link to the study, scientific methods development etc, referenced in the presentation materials: http://research.vet.upenn.edu/Portals/36/media/HsuSerpellJAVMA2003.pdf The results.... just look around (sigh) --Afru (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That study you just referenced does not conclude that there are differences between neutered and non-neutered dogs; in fact, it states explicitly that there were many differences between neutered and non-neutered dogs in the study, such as breeding, that are thought to influence aggression. This happens all the time: a grad student gives a presentation, using data from their lab that have not been peer reviewed. Its a "look what we've been up to; isn't it cool?" type of talk. But then the topic never makes it to publication. Why? Because it couldn't pass peer review. The study you referenced could not have passed peer-review if it made the claim that neutered dogs are more aggressive than non-neutered dogs because there were too many uncontrolled variables in a correlational design; if they had manipulated a variable, they would be in a place to make such a claim. I'll email the author of the powerpoint presentation; I'm confident she will say that there were confounds that precluded them from drawing any conclusions.--Thesoxlost (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence that certain types of aggression are increased with sterilization for some dogs. There's a well-referenced article on the subject here: http://users.lavalink.com.au/theos/Spay-neuter.htm#behav Newcastle (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Newcastle. That is pretty mixed evidence. It looks like the evidence is pretty unanimous that it decreases aggression in males, whereas different studies show different results in females. The main finding from the link you provided related to spaying in females is a survey, which again cannot control for many other factors that could so easily lead to erroneous conclusions. I'll look closer at the individual references. But given that it is a controversial topic, and not all studies are in agreement, could we remove the statement until it is resolved in discussion? If we find that the evidence is overwhelmingly that spaying increases aggression, I won't oppose its inclusion with better references. If its mixed, I won't oppose a more conservative statement with references to both sides. But as is, its claimed as fact and the reference doesn't support that. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not instead mention both sides, since the rest of the section talks about the pros and cons - "There is evidence that some types of aggression may be increased by sterilization, while other types may be decreased. These effects are not universal among all dogs, however." (That's a little rough, but you get the idea.) Newcastle (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good compromise. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Completed items edit refresh

 

• Refs should be outside of punctuation,[1] not inside [2]. hi people*Please look over WP:OVERLINK, there are multiple examples of linking consecutive words and linking irrelevent words (really, what use is linking to Germanic language and color in an article on dogs?). also links to common forms of measurement should be avoided (centimeter?).
• Taxonomy and evolution should be at the beginning of the article, right after Etymology - don't these two seem to relate?
  • Done Coaster1983 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Disorders and diseases" begins with two paragraphs that both discuss genetic diseases and then diseases that are also found in humans - anthropocentrism aside, this is very redundant (hip dysplasia is mentioned twice), and the paragraphs need to be merged/reworded.
• WP:OVERLINK (from above)
• Only the first word in a Section header is capitalized unles it's a quote or proper name
• you need to be consistent with serial commas
• citations do not[1] belong in the middle of sentences,[2] you need to move them to the proceeding punctuation.[3]
• WP:ITALICS there is almost never a need to "quote" something and italicize it in an article, additionally italics have very specific uses. review the guideline and make the needed fixes.
• MOS:ABBR ASPCA should be written out, and the later term SPCAs probably should be also.
• WP:MOSBOLD do a quick Ctrl+F for bold text, it should only be in the lead and for definition lists.
• When discussing terms - they are italicized, not "quoted". e.g. "Median longevity" is wrong
• Avoid the use of: amongst
• The Health section (and subsections) has an anthropocentric tone that needs to be removed. Some comparisons (like with hearing or visual acuity) are useful, others are not (like we both get cancer). This also applies to "Development".
• Besides the "Taxonomy and evolution" section noted in 1A, the "Nutrition" section seems to have some goal of promoting a vegetarian diet for dogs - this is more pronounced with the missing citations. Additionally, I'm not too fond of the source used to discuss specifics on nutrition because it makes claims like meat lacks iron - which is used to support the sentence, "All-meat diets may not be recommended for dogs as they lack vital components of a healthy diet."
• "There is conclusive evidence that dogs genetically diverged from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago. however most believe domestication to have occurred much earlier. The evidence comes from two primary sources: mtDNA studies and archaeological findings, neither of which are conclusive." Bad punctuation aside, this needs to be reworded so the different evidence is more explicit.
• "...dogs are likely descended from a handful of domestication events including a small number of founding females..." are founding females really a domestication "event"?
• "...native to America..." North or South?
• "...the location of maximal genetic divergence, and assumes that hybridization does not occur, and that breeds remain geographically localized." you only need one and.
• "...dogs generally share attributes with their wild ancestors, the wolves. Dogs are predators and scavengers, possessing sharp teeth and strong jaws.... Although selective breeding has changed the appearance of many breeds, all dogs retain basic traits from their distant ancestors." Empasized text is redundant.
• "Although most breeds are memmetropic, one out of two Rottweilers have been found to be myopic." Why are we picking out Rotties? Because they are an exception? Then say this to provide context (like with bloodhounds, and French Bulldogs)
• "In some breeds, the tail is traditionally docked to avoid injuries (especially for hunting dogs). It can happen that some puppies are born with a short tail or no tail in some breeds. This occurs more frequently for certain breeds, especially those breeds that are frequently docked and thus have no breed standard regarding the tail." These sentences have multiple issues with redundancy and flow - they need to be reworked.
• "Some breeds of dogs are also prone..." What else were some breeds of dog said to be prone to? Remove also.
• "...owners of dogs which may be at risk should learn about such conditions as part of good animal care." Instructional - remove
• "As the breed standard has only to do with the externally observable qualities ...." This is a very long complicated sentence. Consider rephrasing or breaking it down.
• "Dogs tend to be poorer than wolves and coyotes at observational learning..." This contradicts the earlier prose in the "Intelligence" section, stating that an experiment found dogs to perform better at observational learning.

Reviewing article. This is a large and intense topic, so please have patience. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cursory review

I've requested CitationBot to look over the article and make edits. Skimming over this article, there are a few concerns that should be addressed.

1. The first ref should go, as a source for whether this is a distinct subspecies (which might be controversial) find the Linneaus source alluded to in the taxobox.
2. Review WP:LEAD. The current lead is not reflective of the length of the article, nor a proper summation - for something so long i would expect about three paragraphs, and given the variety of sections there should be more information in here.
3. Remove the lead ref about coat types - unless this is such a controversial or extraordinary claim that it sparked a discussion to require it. (the other two refs are fine)
4. I would also suggest Differences from wolves be moved to become the third section - if there was dicussion to have it placed at the end, i'll defer.
5. There are problems with tone. specifically, articles need to avoid words like should as this can be interpreted as instructional. Sections with instructional tones and prose include: Disorders and diseases, Diet, Taxonomy and evolution (see next paragraph). Additionally what is going on in the refs that are offering two links (one is cheaper, should you buy)?

   The phrase in Taxonomy and evolution, "As noted above, care should be taken when considering the genetic evidence for the origins of dogs and dog breeds." is self-referencial and instructional - if there is controversy about the genetic evidence for breed origins, state that, provide examples, and then move on.

6. I do not believe there is a strong reason to have a section like Dangerous substances. We really need a section stating that alcohol, bleach, and detergent are dangerous if consumed? you could put a section like this on almost any animal's article. I doubt the encyclopedic worth of this information and would prefer it either removed or trimmed down to noteworthy specifics like chocolate and antifreeze (both of which regularly recieve mainstream attention) - i'm sure you can use a ref to point to a site with a list of "things to keep away from your pet" but wikipedia shouldn't be that list.
7. duplicate refs,[1][5][6][7] like this, should be avoided except for highly controversial claims or prose which combines facts from several sources. In neccessary cases, they should go in numerical order (take a look at Mortality for an example).
8. go over formatting with a fine-tooth comb - syntax like, "...years ago[91],[92][29]" and "...years.[93]). [no opening parentheses]" and "...dog racing & dog sledding." should have been caught before GAN.
9. Topics that are noticeably missing: The huge role dogs have played in entertainment-specifically as performance animals (not just fiction, but circuses and other venues as well); Controversy over domestication of the dog and breeding practices; A section devoted to feral dogs (while mentioned throughout separate sections, it would seem that this a significant enough topic to merit specific exposition)

-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Zappernapper,

Thanks for reviewing this article; its a pretty long article, so its great that you agreed to help out. Up front, I just wanted to respond to a number of your concerns about formatting issues. We weren't being intentionally lackadaisical about these issues; its just such a large article, and I am a very poor copy editor--my brain just doesn't notice these things.

Otherwise, I think most of what you brought up are things that have been considered as potential changes; I'll happily make these (e.g., removing the dangerous substances section will be a pleasure). I suppose the only real issue I have with your comments is related to your last: could these sections that you are proposing including be an idiosyncratic preference? For instance, I don't feel that entertainment or performance is a central issue to the topic of dogs. The article is pretty bloated as is, and I would like to remove marginal sections. Other potential sections, like a section on feral dogs, sounds reasonable, although slightly marginal. I'll apply many of the fixes you propose and respond to others in a reasonable timeframe. Thanks again for taking on this review! --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

just a quick response - late for work, hehe. I'm sure those no dearth of editors to this article - if everyone takes a section, the copyedit problems shouldn't take too long. As for missing sections - certain kinds of articles require certain kinds of sections. In any article on a subject which has gone from being painted on Minoan walls - to being made into a god - to being the driving force in a billion-dollar pet industry - to getting more air-time than any other non-human animal; i think all these things are equally important. Additionally, the controversy section is there to add some balance to this article which at times can read as a nice article-for-dog-owners. There's especially controversy about back-yard breeders, culling, docking - all of which is oddly absent. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Formal review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

 

1. Is it reasonably well written?

 

A. Prose quality:

• Most of the real problems with prose are covered by MOS guidelines below (1B). however the following are excerpted problem areas-

 

Problem prose

• "...Asian and African breeds, including the..." do we really need 15 examples of Asian and African breeds? Pick two representative breeds of each and stick with them. If we need a comprehensive list, stick it in a note (like refs) so it doesn't detract from the prose.
• "Although these assumptions hold for many species, there is good reason to believe that they do not hold for canines." What is the good reason? I'd rephrase this to avoid that kind of question instead of trying to expand on it.
• "The frequency range of dog hearing is approximately 40 Hz to 60,000 Hz. Dogs detect sounds as low as the 16 to 20 Hz frequency range... and above 45 kHz..." This sounds contradictory and needs to be explained better.
• "Dog types are broad categories based on function, genetics or characteristics." For example...
• "...but several breeds, including ... are nearly as short-lived..." again, this many examples detracts from the prose. Pick two and either remove the rest or put them in a note.
• "Adler & Adler..." This should be rewritten with the doctors full names and contextualized with their speciality.
• "The paws of a dog are half the size of those of a wolf, and their tails tend to curl upwards, another trait not found in wolves." These are unrelated items, they shouldn't be in the same sentence... there's a perfectly good sentence preceding this one that discusses the differences in paws. Try to reorganize the whole "Physical characteristics" subsection of "Diff. from wolves".

 

• I'm ignoring the "Dangerous substances" section as I've already outlined the problems with it, and expect a serious rewrite or removal.
• Review uses of parantheses, and see if the info couldn't be written offset by commas, rewritten into the prose, or outright removed.
• "Taxonomy and evolution": consider a way to reorganize so that you aren't having to tell readers to refer to discussion elsewhere, and generally make it a little easier to follow, the intro paragraph to the section is fine; the mention of controversy and then the use of only one source for the claims suggests a non-neutral POV on the subject, I'm not an expert on the subject but what do other sources say about this topic? - fixed
• The peculiarities of dogs' ears is mentioned in "Hearing", and "Differences from wolves", but absent in "Physical characteristics" - this would be a great place to expand on the topic which is discussed elsewhere in presumptive language (like we already know that they are usually floppy)
• Instructional tone (from above)

 

B. MoS compliance:

• remove or rephrase words like recently, soon, now, currently
• WP:JARGON you should attempt to exaplain, in context, what these words mean - or use synonyms. Only as a last resort should you rely only on wikilinking: landraces, dyadic, mtDNA, founding females, maximal genetic divergence, hybridization, flicker rate, foveal region, dolichocephalic, memmetropic (probably should be emmetropic?), sympatric, alteration (in spaying and neutering)
• WP:LEAD

• Does not summarize article. Noticeably missing: Health, Differences from wolves.
• Does not mention notable controversies - actually the lack of any coverage on controversy is also a problem, see 3A and 4.

• WP:PUNCT really, most of these problems are incredibly silly things like not capitalizing the first letter in a sentence, forgetting a necessary comma, or adding one in bad place. Below is a current TOC of all the sections in this article, when someone has gone through and made sure it is free of errors, strike it out - also feel free to update it as the article changes.

 

Current TOC

By Sketchmoose (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC):

Etymology and related terminology

Taxonomy and evolution

Biology

Senses

Sight

Hearing

Smell

Physical characteristics

Coat

Tail

Types and breeds

Health

Mortality

Predation

Diet

Reproduction

Neutering

Intelligence and behavior

Intelligence

Behavior

Interactions with humans

Work

Sports and shows

Differences from wolves

Physical characteristics

Behavior

Trainability

 

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

• "...classified as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the Gray Wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."
• "According to the Humane Society of the United States..."
• Bob Barker and Drew Carey need to be sourced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

• "Modern dog breeds show more variation in size, appearance, and behavior than any other domestic animal." It was cited in the lead but not the body?
• "The dog widely reported to be the longest-lived on record is "Bluey," purportedly born in 1910 in Australia. He died in 1939 at the age of 29.5 years." The article then goes on to say that the Bluey record is unverified, if this content can be verified as a well-known anecdote, then cite that and present it that way immediately... not three sentences later.
• "Recent studies proved that spayed and neutered dogs in general are more aggressive towards people and other dogs, as well as more fearful and sensitive to touch than dogs than had not been sterilized,[80] though individual effects may vary." so where is the sourced counter-argument?
• "One such class of cognition that involves the understanding that others are conscious agents, often referred to as theory of mind, is an area where dogs excel." Also consider rewording this to make it easier to read, and put theory of mind in "quotes".
• There are cite tags in "Disorders and diseases", "Nutrition", "Reproduction"

C. No original research:

Neutral because of above problems (2A, 2B)

 

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

Missing sections are noted above; additionally - Dogs as food, dogs in science

B. Focused:

 

4. Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:

 

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

The only questionable image is File:Cavalier King Charles Spaniel trio.jpg, where the caption states that it is an example of "with-breed variation" which is not discussed in the accompanying section. either expand the section or remove the image. Also, we devote a whole paragraph to explaining what counter-shading is and yet a single image would be immensely helpful.

 

7. Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I really wanted to be able to place this article on hold. I am sure that lots of editors have spent a good deal of time on the article. But after carefully reading through the prose it seems like the nomination was a bit premature. remember, articles should be nominated only when the main contributors truly feel the article is ready to be promoted, the presence of cite tags and obvious MOS problems are a sign that work still needs to be done. I was only able to pass 3 out of the 8 criteria I explictly assessed - it comes to a 38%. If i could have passed at least a majority of the criteria i would have merely put the article on hold. I'm more than willing to answer any specific questions and to help editors here work towards a renomination in the future. I hope to soon see this article reach beyond GA and become Featured within the near future.

Lack of sweat glands on paws? Where in Coppinger's book ?

I just started with Coppingers book and there was something very strange when compared with this and the grey wolf article. In the greywolf article it was stated that: Unlike dogs and coyotes, gray wolves lack sweat glands on their paw pads. This trait is also present in Eastern Canadian Coyotes which have been shown to have recent wolf ancestry. Itw as similar in this article and the referenced source was Coppinger, Ray (2001). Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. pp. p352. ISBN 0684855305.

Well I just started with the book and in the foreword it was stated that dogs and western coyotes just have a higher density of those sweat glands than wolves, not that wolves lack them. Saidly I can't just turn to the referenced page 352 because I have the german translation, so could someobody tell me in which chapter that page is so I can check whether the contradiction is based on the writer or on the book?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting notes

I was asked to copyedit this article, and I am doing so, but I think some fundamental rewriting is in order. I have comments here, which i will be adding to as I go through the article.

1. What makes Miklosi such an expert that his book is used more than 20 times (with on page numbers) in the opening sections? As a note, it was more, but there are some paragraphs taken entirely from Miklosi, so I dropped the line-by-line cites in favor of a single paragraph end cite. For such a generic article, one source should not be relied upon so heavily for information in a given area.

2. I will leave it up to the regular editors, but I believe that the etymology section has no place in this article. This article is about the animal, not the word, and the etymology section really sidetracks the article. Since it's useful info in some sense, I haven't hacked it out, but I suggest that some discussion be had on this item amongst the regulars.

3. There's a lot of circular discussion in this article. Many items come up multiple times, but in different sections. Again, I would say that the regulars need to decide on one place to reference information, and leave it in that place within the article. For example, the divergence comes up at least three times, and is only discussed in-depth once. MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

4. I broke down the senses into subsections for ease of use.

5. I removed the numbers of olfactory cells in the section on smell. The numbers mean very little; a postage stamp vs. a handkerchief is dependent on the size of said objects. I think it's enough to say forty times larger and not belabor the point. MSJapan (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Dog health - I removed the portion on heat exhaustion, as it's the only example given. The opening statement as I have reworded it is enough to get the point across, and examples should only be given if multiple useful examples can be found. MSJapan (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

7. I removed the sections on domestic dog nutrition requirements, and also on dangerous substances. Both of these are in violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO. MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

8. I've cut the section on comparison with wolves. As dogs are clearly stated to be descendants of wolves, it's pretty obvious they aren't the same, and I don't believe that the comparative section adds anything of use to this article. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting is complete. Template removed. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)i appreciate you taking the time to go through this, and fix the grammatical/spelling/punctuation errors. I agree with your first point that rather than citing every sentence it is more helpful to cite the paragraph if the whole thing attributable - however in trimming down the paragraph, "This evidence depends on a number of assumptions..." you removed the ref and then added a {{who}}, so I've re-added it.

to the second point - i am by no means a regular editor, but i think entymology sections are expected in articles where it is a term that is so old, just my two cents, we'll see what consensus is.

and any help you can give to the redundancy in this article is appreciated :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the same Miklosi ref, and it still didn't state who claimed it. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit, MSJapan. Miklosi made the claim himself. He considers all of the conflicting evidence and evaluates the weaknesses of each. There may be additional refs that can be provided for the weaknesses, such as the dependence on the wolf-coyote divergence date, etc. I'll see what we can do. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Recommended changes

Thanks for zapper for taking the time to review this behemoth of an article. I've typed up responses to his points below in part just for my own use in addressing the concerns. But in places I disagree and I explain why. I'll update this as I make improvements to address his concerns.

1)

• Instructional language: these sentences need not be instructional. They could be easily changed without altering the meaning of the sentence. Easily addressed.
  • Much of the instructional language has been removed - unsure if there's still a sentence or two. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• I hope the copy edit helped with the readability of the Evolution section. This is a pretty central issue that should be easily accessible. I'll see if I can improve on it as well.
• I'm pleased to see dangerous substances deleted. Perhaps it warrants a stub page of its own elsewhere.
• Re WP:JARGON, this is a pretty subjective issue. I understand your concern, but the solution isn't clear to me. Alteration seems to meet the WP:JARGON description perfectly: a technical slang word. But I think landraces, mtDNA, founding females, genetic divergence, hybridization, and foveal region are all important concepts that are being used precisely here. Some could be explained more, but I hope the context will provide enough information to allow the reader to gloss over the word if they don't care to understand it. Other words, like dolichoencephalic (sp?), emmetropic, and sympatric aren't being used as slang, but also aren't terribly important to the article. If they decrease its readability, they can be removed without much cost.
  • Jargon isn't really subjective, but perhaps i also included words that were merely too technical and which needed explanation. For example, Ctrl+F "landraces" and see the edit i made. Also, if we want to be able to use the shorthand for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) then it should be explained in the first instance (just like with acronyms and initialisms). It doesn't matter if the terms are being used correctly/precisely (if they weren't, I would've removed them right away), it matters that the casual reader will spend too much time clicking a link to find out what we're saying and it is distracting. Of those last three i would suggest keeping sympatric and just explaining it in the first instance. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Re the lead, you are right that this should be expanded greatly. Its a huge article, so I'm not sure every section really needs to be referred to here, but it was clearly lacking as is.
  • Each section is supposed to be a major point of the topic, and because the lead should be a summary of the topic, all major points should be mentioned - we don't need large amounts of prose, and subsection information is of least importance, but a short sentence or two is enough. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2a.)

...classified as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the Gray Wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."

• This point isn't contraversial, and it actually can be removed entirely; the most relevant classification is the ICZN classification; the best reference for that is probably "Mammal Species of the World" 1993 and 2005; I'll stop by the library and look it up just to be sure.
  • you're missing the point, it is not the controversiality of the issue, it's the fact that you're attributing a specific fact to a specific "person". When you do that you need to back it up with a reference.

"According to the Humane Society of the United States..."

• This could use a reference, as it appears to be contraversial. [1] states that the number in 1997 was 2.7 million. [2] state that because the source of the data is not a random sample of US shelters. [3] is the source of the 3-4 million per year. Looks like they made it up. All 3 are WP:RS: American Humane Society, National Council on Pet Population, and the Humane Society of the United States.

Bob Barker and Drew Carey need to be sourced.

• Can we just delete this as trivia?
  • we could probably have it moved the Spaying and neutering article, but because it is a long standing piece of the article i would be interested to know what others think. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm glad to see you digging through the references to determine the reliability of the sources being used. I admit that i did not do this as the problems originally raised seemed numerous enough, and (ironically) i didn't want to scare everyone off with a big pile of homework. i'd suggest going through and double checking all your sources, making sure they say what they claim, and that they are indeed reliable. i've tried to clean up as many as i could using automated tools but i may take a closer look and fix some of the nitpickier details. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2b.)

• "More variability" is easily referenced
• I'd be happy to remove Bluey entirely; lets focus on the 24 year record thats verifiable.

"Recent studies proved that spayed and neutered dogs in general are more aggressive towards people and other dogs, as well as more fearful and sensitive to touch than dogs than had not been sterilized,[80] though individual effects may vary." so where is the sourced counter-argument?

This is a recent addition (post nomination) that I think is BS. The source is a talk given by a grad student. Neither the grad student nor the advisor has subsequently published these data, despite having multiple years to do so. Further, the authors published a study in which they had the data to make a statement, and made none. Another editor has pointed out another source, but the source cites a number of contradictory/inconsistent findings that are difficult to integrate.

as this is a contentious statement and a grad student's pet theory (pun not intended) should never be an RS, we should probably remove the sentence entirely. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"One such class of cognition that involves the understanding that others are conscious agents, often referred to as theory of mind, is an area where dogs excel." Also consider rewording this to make it easier to read, and put theory of mind in "quotes".

OK. This isn't a verifiability issue though?

My fault for not being clear, that dogs "excel" in understanding a "theory of mind" is somewhat arguable, and a little peacock-y. Especially because the last sentence of the paragraph states, "the... evidence points to dogs possessing at least a limited form of theory of mind. (emphasis added)" The are two very different claims and we should either draw attention to this inconsistency or remove it. Readabilty issues have been addressed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are cite tags in "Disorders and diseases", "Reproduction"

The citation tag in "Reproduction" marks a couple of silly statements that could be removed. I'll put a reference to the health tag; It could also be improved, that doesn't look like an exhaustive list.

I would actually recommend against expanding that list, if not outright removing it. Drawing parallels between human and canid diseases isn't incredibly helpful, we could present the same information outside of the anthropocentric context. Ironically, probably the most notable zoonosis, rabies, isn't mentioned at all. You might find the merck vet manual to be a useful source in getting the right scope on this subject. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

3.)

Missing sections are noted above; additionally - Dogs as food, dogs in science

• Here is one area where we appear to disagree. There used to be a "dogs as food" sentence, but I deleted it because (1) I thought even a sentence was undue weight, and (2) it was orphaned, with no section to which it really belonged. Every organism has, at one time or another, been a source of food for another. I don't feel that this is an issue that is specifically relevant to dogs.
  • We're devoting a section to the roles dogs have played in human society, and to be characterizing all those roles as either pets (which is also oddly missing from that specific section), working dogs, show dogs, or racing dogs is erroneous. In some parts of the world the dog's penchant for domestication has led to the same result as that for sheep and cattle. There is an entire market and infrastructure set up around dog meat, look up some info on Vietnam for an example. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Dogs in entertainment strikes me as a tangential issue that cannot be considered central to the topic. If there was an article on this, I would argue to add it to "See Also." For me, I guess the issue is that entertainment is not a key aspect of this topic, nor are dogs a special topic in entertainment. If this section had been in the article, I think I would have cut it out because the article is already so bloated. Also, I would guess that horses get more airtime than dogs do, but these are simply the most ubiquitous domesticated animals. Their presence in art reflects their presence in human life, not a special importance to art.
  • So you're saying that the dog's ubiquity doesn't merit discussion in it's degree? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Dogs in science may be different. Recently, dogs have been used more in genetic studies because of their wide range of genetic material and because they share many disorders with humans. A section on mapping the dog genome for the purpose of exploring genetic diseases is an issue that is specific to dogs. But other uses, where dogs could be replaced by any other mammal without altering the scientific studies, again seem tangential.
  • Dogs have been used since science's early days as a model organism for thought and behavior, specifically in experiments on operant and classical conditioning. They are one of only a handful of animals that were used in the experiments leading up to a formal definition of such terms. if you want to focus on recent genetic experiments, that would satisfy the GA requirement, but you are ignoring years of work the dog has done in the creation of modern psychology. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Feral dogs would probably make an interesting section. I don't know much about them. I think its a good idea to add this section, but I don't really consider the article lacking without it; For me this is back-burner. I encourage other editors to make a project of this.

my above notes aside, it seems you feel that this article is bloated and are wary of adding content. The dog is a long-existing topic and there's a lot of information on it, as such the article should be reflective of that. Ideally you want this article to reach FA, but that will never happen if you resist attempts to make the article comprehensive and balanced. There is far too much emphasis on the cute-and-cuddly side of dogs that every dog-owner likes to read about. And again, where is the controversy on docking, culling, back-yard breeding, on even having dogs as pets in general? I don't mean for all these topics to have huge sections of their own, but due weight would indicate that these topics need to at least be mentioned. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Free photos of dogs

I'm able to hand over the rights of hundreds of my photos that you might include on the article with no charge. Please aware me whenever it would needed. I produce and collect my own material as a hobbie.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

it might help if we could see where these photos are located and the related copyrights you have on them. - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 09:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Afghan breed

The link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan should be changed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Hound on the main page, under the list of a few older breeds, toward the top.

(Sorry I don't have 10 edits yet, so can't edit semi-protected pages)

Inlinesk8er (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The wikilink has been fixed.Coaster1983 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How old are dogs?

This article is very, pardon, dogmatic in its presentation of dogs as being 15,000 years old. The trouble is the previously accepted age is now debatable. Germonpré et al abstract have presented fairly convincing fossil anatomical evidence that dogs are actually at least +/-31,000 years old. Would the usual editors allow a change of the numbers?Trilobitealive (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

nobody owns the article, and the spirit of wikipedia is to be bold. Actually, reading the Taxonomy and evolution section, it appears that a wide range of dates appear. and it claims the only agreed upon consensus is that we aren't really sure. According to the article, DNA evidence points to a divergence spanning from 15 to 40,000 years ago, or as much as 140,000 years ago. I don't think it would be out of line to squeeze your info in there somewhere, just be sure to keep the section readable as there have been prose issues before. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the main section and the taxonomy and evolution sections might have been written by two primary editors. I just ran across this particular reference on anatomic evidence which echoes what the DNA guys have been saying and was wondering about plugging it in here. I guess it depends on whether a reader is more oriented toward classic or molecular biology which they believe is more credible. Both support extending the age of dogs but neither support an arbitrary date.

My primary plan would be deleting references to the date in the main section or changing them to "more than" or giving a range of values, but this is a really good tightly written non-fringe article and people have the right to revert when a stranger starts changing things without good explanation. Will come back in a few days or so and do some changes if no one else objects.Trilobitealive (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My hope is that the section doesn't come off as supporting dogma, but rather that Trilobite couldn't help but use the pun.

So this topic is a difficult one with no clear answer at present. There have been many academic papers published on the topic, and so a full discussion of the evidence goes well beyond the scope of this article. My goal for this section was not to present all possible answers that have support from at least one paper, but rather to summarize and present the prevailing "best-guess" amongst experts, while making it clear that it was nothing more than that. To this end, I feel that Miklosi 2009 is the best source. He considers a wide range of evidence, discusses the limitations of a number of different approaches, presents his own position, and discusses what he feels to be the consensus opinion amongst experts.

I don't quite know what to make of this reference. I found this article very difficult to read. No doubt the fact that the first 5 authors spoke 4 different languages didn't help :). I don't doubt that the article is interesting, but the article itself doesn't really make an attempt to synthesize its findings into the literature. My read is that these authors are saying, "Genetically, the Goyet canids look nothing like modern dogs nor wolves; from the context and their morphology, we are classifying them as dogs. Thus we propose that dogs were [being] domesticated prior to 30,000 years ago." Again, I don't quite know what to make of that.

BTW, thanks for the ref; I hadn't seen it yet. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it currently says "at least". I see no logical conflict with "more than". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes

somone who can edit the article needs to hide a note written about not having a reference. 125.239.48.128 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Health risk, Brain size

Reading this page I found the remark that dogs are not a real hazard to human health, while in fact they are especialy to children (it was pretty easy to find a reference for that). Also the estimate of reduction in brain size should be about 30% I believe. I checked to references, a Russian one that was hard to retrace and the used reference. The used reference gave a 20% reduction in brain size for equal skull size and a 20% reduction in skull size, amounting to 40%. Also from what I remembered from a documentary comment the figure should be around 30%.

All in all I think the article is a little skewed in favor of the dog, as it is written by dog lovers. I like dogs also, but living in a crowded city where dogs are still doing their thing on the sidewalk or at playing grounds it is hard not to see the negative aspects.

Viridiflavus (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As cuisine

There is no info about dogs as food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.245.250 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw this, I thought it was maybe trolling - but no, you have a point. This article is very much written from the Western standpoint of dogs as pets and helpful friends. Perhaps we should have a section on "Cultural viewpoints" or some such, discussing:

• Dogs as violent amusement, such as the past practice of bear-baiting and the lamentably current practice of dogfighting.
• Dogs as food, a largely East Asian practice I believe - and the cultural conflict thereto (since Western residents are, umm, "somewhat opposed" to this practice. ;)
• Dogs as unclean creatures, I believe this is the Muslim view and I'm not sure on where Hinduism places the dog.
• Animal abuse / dogs as property. This may attract some heated discussion though.

To address our global readership, this article should probably address all these points in summary fashion. 75.161, perhaps you would like to make an attempt at editing the article to include a new section? Franamax (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NO but thank you for seeing my point. I have terrible writing skills. I love dogs that is why I brought it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.245.250 (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

this point was brought up in the last GA nom, and is one of the resons it failed. While in-depth discussion would be an FA issue, a mention of these topics is required. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 10:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dogs-Breeds-Kyle .L.

There are many times of dogs including herding Breeds, Toy and Companion, Working dogs, and more. Working dogs can be anywere from German Sheperds to Labradors, Toy and Companion include dogs such as, Chiwauwaus and Jach Russels. In the category of Herding dogs are, dogs like the Border Collie and Australian Sheperds Kyle .L.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.73.3 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

which means that dogs can detect sounds outside both ends of the human auditory spectrum

but humans can hear even 20Hz.. dogs only above 40Hz...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.9.247 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Canine Cognition Lab text

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/doglab.html

--Calypsoparakeet (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My Rottweiller speyed bitch smiles; has anyone else seen this in their dogs? Her 'smiling' has been witnessed by our family but also by many, many people who she has become to trust. Does anyone else see this in their dogs or is it just her? I think other dogs may 'smile' too, please let me know? A

Many dogs and other mammals appear to smile but it almost certainly doesn't indicate the same as a human smile - see the Wikipedia smile article. Barnabypage (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

dogs help humans Dogs have been with us all through and the history of the world. Cats have too, but dogs have shown have a more positive impact on our history. Dogs have been around helping us all through the years, helping us to evolve to become we are at today. “Evidently, the domestication of dogs and the civilization of man occurred at the same time.” (Reader's Digest Illustrated 16) “Dogs offer us emotional support, lift our spirits, and ease stress.” (Thomas 97) Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall. Guide to your Dog. New York: Wild Discovery, 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.93.243 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong name

The article is entitled "dog", but the word dog can also mean any species in the Canidae family, including wolves, foxes, jackals and domestic Dogs. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

i think that most people would be typing in dog to look up the domesticated wolf, and it would be going against established precedent that we use the common name of an animal when there is one people can agree on. this precedent is itself based on the principle of least astonishment and guidance at WP:NAME. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Interbreeding Dog Breeds

Maybe a stupid question, but can dog breeds as disparate as, say, a Saint Bernard and a Jack Russell Terrier produce offspring? If they can't, does that not make them different species? Thanks 69.134.33.93 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They can interbreed. If the cross is the wrong way around, the pregnancy will probably kill the mother before she can give birth, though. However, note also that being able to interbreed isn't really the defining factor for a species - horses and donkeys can interbreed to produce mules and lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers, but they're all considered distinct species. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Being able to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring was the traditional definition of a species. It is very rare that a mule or liger is fertile. Dog crosses are always fertile. Nevertheless, this definition isn't very helpful and these days scientists try to avoid it. Speciation is a gradual process. There will always be a grey area while the gene flow between two populations is very low and they are slowly diverging. Species is just a term of convinience, based on many factors. Dogs are a relatively unambigous case - definitely one species. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an unambiguous case because size is a continuously distributed feature without any categorical distinction across breeds. If environmental barriers were removed, the extreme features of all breeds (e.g., very large or very small size) would regress towards the mean (or some point of equilibrium). Many individual dogs would not be able to mate with others (e.g., your St. Bernard and Jack Russell), but their offspring would be able to. Their genetic material would merge relatively quickly.

I like the strange case of the French Bulldog, which has been bred for such ridiculous characteristics that the males don't have the strength to mount the females; they have to be artificially inseminated. If environmental barriers were removed, this breed would be in the comical position of only being able to mate with other breeds, and even then only the females. The breed would disappear in a generation. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If environmental barriers were removed, the extreme features of all breeds (e.g., very large or very small size) would regress towards the mean (or some point of equilibrium). Which is exactly what one sees with feral dogs, of course. Barnabypage (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh. If you want to be picky about it, there are still plenty of examples of "different species" that can interbreed and have offspring that aren't sterile. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes; house cats and certain species of wild cats (ocelots and Leopard Cats, for instance); horses and zebras, many species of birds... point is, what a "species" is isn't always all that clear-cut. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that taxonomic categories don't always cleave nature at its joints? --Thesoxlost (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The alternative would seem to be that taxonomic categories are infallibly correct... which seems unlikely. :) Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

... if the Pope can be, then why not? --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Something on that matter, that might be helpful, not only does the offspring of two beings must be fertile also the offspring of this must be fertile and in general in good health. An example to clarify: here in Germany there were once breeding experiments where they crossed the following canids: poodle/wolf, poodle/coyote, dwarven poodle/golden jackal. The hybrids were left to interbreeed with each other (so the wolf-dogs among each other, the coy-dogs among each other and so on). Well, all showed a wide variability from the second hybrid generation onward; however, there were a few notable differences: no matter how they looked the wolf-dogs never had communication problems so signififcant that it would permanently disrupt the group (there were of course problems because some wolf-dogs simply had to much hair), also they could produce viable fertile and healthy offspring down to the third hybrid generation (the experiment was stopped at that time), further more even the wolves and poodles interbred when left by themselves. This was not the case for the coy-dogs and jackal-dogs, there, signififcant communication problems occured and the hybrids occasionally had to give certain signals completely different meanings more than once, also in the third hybrid generation, their fertility significantly decreased and the number of genetical health problems increased. Furthermore the jackals, coyotes and poodles avoided the other species when left for themselves and no voluntary interbreeding occured. And just as an easter egg: the poodles were always the dominant ones ;)--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Health risks to humans section.

Most people also find dogs urinating and defecating in a public place to be offensive To me this sentence seems unnecessary, out of place, and poorly cited. 67.233.209.55 (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• So fix it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected so i can't. 67.233.209.55 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. I left the cite in, as the cited item addresses health risks as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What many people find more offensive, and in some places is illegal is leaving the feces on the sidewalk while walking the dog. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Diet

It's just a general "thought" of the person who wrote it. There is even a "disclaimer" at the bottom of the article the footnote references to make sure a reader knows that it is "written for and by students without any claims of accuracy."

The use of this as a "footnote" boggles the mind.

It certainly does! Farts, what dogs do all the time. I have to evacute my house whenever my dog decides to let out some air. TERRIBLE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.202.110 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who noticed the absurd assertion in the article that dogs are omnivores.

The absurd thing is that Wikipedia normally observant and quick to catch nonsense like this, has completely missed how the concept of the "footnote" to "verify" a fact has been royally abused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolorious (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More published proof that dogs are carnivores, not omnivores:
Dogs desended from wolves. As dogs got demesticated thay have changed. Their teeth are for punturing but most people give dogs regular dog food. As you probably know dogs will usually eat anything, that doesn't make them carnivors. Canines don't hunt down meat and feed on it. The average dog owner feeds their canine dog food and what is in the food in vitemins and healthy minerals for the dog. Dogs love meat.

As you look into your dog's mouth, notice those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp teeth). These are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar. Hence, dogs do not chew, they are designed to bite, rip, shred, scissor/crush and swallow.

However much, we humans have done to tinker with and change the dog's body design (resulting invarying sizes and conformations), we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines. "Dogs have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore" (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to requiring longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). Some educated People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be pre-processed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a highly questionable practice.

"Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the breakdown process of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. The carnivore's pancreas does not secrete cellulase to split the cellulose into glucose molecules, nor have dogs become efficient at digesting and assimilating and utilizing plant material as a source of high quality protein. Herbivores do those sorts of things" Canine and Feline Nutrition Case, Carey and Hirakawa Published by Mosby, 1995

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation). Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA ( Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). br>This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html). "The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."

Dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?"(www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.).

References: Prof. Dr. Sir John Whitman Ray B.A., ND., D.Sc., NMD., CT. MT.. CI, Cert. Pers., PhD., B.C Dip N, MD. (M.A.), Dr. Ac, FFIM., Dp. IM., F.WA I .M., RM., B.E.I.N.Z., S.N.T.R., N Z. Char. NMP, N P A Dr. Francis M. Pottenger Jr. MD Dr. Kouchakoff of Switzerland Dr. Weston A. Price Dr Tom Lonsdale Carissa Kuehn

Dr. Dr Jeanette Thomason http://www.thewholedog.org/artcarnivores.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.176.5 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It´s classified like a carnivore but is a omnivore... ??? what kind of affirmation is that?

Although there are reported cases (...) of carnivores eating plants, the classification refers to the adaptations and main food source of the species in general so these exceptions do not make either individual animals nor the species as a whole omnivores.

‘Have you ever seen a dog attack a wheat field?’

Professor David Kronfeld

Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pág 258 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdónMorales (talk • contribs) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdónMorales (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions milk as a source of proteins for dogs. But my vet told me that dogs cannot digest milk (We use buffalo milk) and should be given meat or eggs (I have a lab female)?--Nikhil Sanjay Bapat (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The "footnote" used to "backup" the notion that "dogs are Omnivores" is BOGUS! A quick check of the link tells you it is Non-Scientific information written by and for students. That's It. It is NOT a reflection of any sort of scientific thinking or research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokonik (talk • contribs) 22:00, September 18, 2009

I've added some additional/better supporting cites. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Domestic instead of domesticated?

After checking the article on domestication I wondered whether it wouldn't be better to describe the domestic dog in the article as a "domestic subspecies" of the gray wolf instead of domesticated, or just as a subspecies. According to the article of domestication one characterisation is artificial selection by humans. And although this is true for the majority of the dogs who belong to breeds, this is certainly not true for feral dogs and many (if not the majority) of cross- and mixed breed dogs.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point Flynneffects (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What? feral dogs descended from domestic dogs. Their ancestors were artificially selected by humans. Crossbreed and mixed breed dogs are not decended from domesticated dogs? How the heck you figure that? You mean if you cross two breeds it's gone back to wild again? Amazing!DigbyDalton (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Carnivores

The omnivores statement is why wiki is not accepted by any university, much less elementary school teachers. There are countless articles that classify dogs as carnivores. Anyone with a basic science background can look at the anatomy and tell where dogs fall in the classification. Domestication changes nothing. A horse is a horse if it's wild or tame. Wiki calls dogs carnivores under the carnivores section. Here they someone that chooses to feed their dog veggies thinks that changes their classification. Sorry, you just have a bias. Here's some links: http://aspenbloompetcare.com/2009/07/dogs-the-omnivore-carnivore-controversy.htm http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore

So, now we KNOW dogs are carnivores and all dietary decisions must conform to this if they are to result in proper, appropriate, nutrition. This is not something we can change to suit our own likes, needs and beliefs. In order to respect animals we need to honor their true nature rather than creating myths to allow for our convenience or even for our denial of living with carnivores in our homes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.44.111 (talk • contribs)

Okay, are coyotes carnivores?--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dogs are actually omnivores. Even though most of them probably do eat more meat than plants if they can help it and may prefer meat, they still do eat plants. Saying that they are carnivores is like saying that people are herbivores simply because most people eat more plants than meat. The truth is dogs do rely on plants for proper nutrition as well as on meat. I have dogs of my own and I know for a fact that they love several types of plants: they snatch carrots every chance they get, adore celery, and like to eat the wild grasses they find in their yard, to name a few. That is one reason why most, if not all, commercial dog foods include vegetables and at least one type of grain, but have more meat than other ingredients, as healthy wild dogs would eat a lot of meat as well. And about the milk: I think dogs are meant to generally be lactose intolerant, so it probably should be avoided unless your veterinarian says otherwise. Zonafur (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Zonafur

^ You're 100% wrong in your assumption. Just because a dog is opportunistic, absolutely does NOT mean it has a nutritional need for plant matter. My dog eats cat poop. Does that mean she has a nutritional need for cat poop? Should you be feeding your dog cat poop?! Of course not. By your logic, my dog must be a catpoopivore!

When's the last time you ate something you don't have a nutritional need for? Yesterday, I ate a piece of cheesy garlic bread. It may have contained some iron and some calcium an a few other vitamins and minerals, but I'm sure I could've gotten those nutrients and calories by eating a much healthier option. On top of that, I have the ability to digest what I ate (well, for the most part) -- dogs do not have a the ability (they're lacking enzymes and a proper digestive tract) to digest whole veggies. If you feed a dog a whole carrot and he swallows it whole, it'll come out whole. And if you're feeding your dog pureed veggies for vitamins and minerals, well guess what, those same vitamins and minerals can be found in meat, bone, and organ which dogs can digest much more efficiently. So, WHY would you intentionally feed them veggies for nutritional reasons when you know 1. they're not going to get anything out of it and 2. there are much more species-appropriate options available?

And, of course most commercial dog foods contain veggies and grains (take note that higher "quality" kibbles do not contain grains) -- they're cheaper than meat, afterall, and *industry* is built on *profit margins*! The pet food industry exists to line the pockets of the people in the industry. Naive and ignorant consumers (and many veterinarians) have been completely brainwashed. One more thing, did you know that your veterinarian most likely receives incentives and kickbacks for pushing certain brands (think how many vet offices you've seen pushing Hill's. And then think about what a horrible quality "food" Hill's is proven to be).

Additionally, I find it very intriguing that this same debate doesn't exist for wolves. That fact in itself really speaks to the fact that dogs are carnivores. Do you realize wolves are also opportunistic feeders? Wolves eat berries and carrots, too! With wolves, like dogs, the fruits & veggies come out just as undigested as they went in. Why aren't wolves classified as omnivores? The diet of a wolf and a wild dog is *identical*. As is quite common, you are confusing preferred tastes/diets to anatomical definitions, which are generally an indication of best and healthiest diets (not preferred tastes).

Weewoah333 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... a bit of googling turned up this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(added) I noticed an error in the link above. It should point to this. The difference is the spelling of a search term. Just to clarify, the bit of interest reads, "Maned wolves are omnivores, consuming small vertebrates and invertebrates and large quantities of fruit, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading Carnivora. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which says, "... nearly all carnivorans today primarily eat meat ... [o]thers, such as racoons and bears, depending on the local habitat, are more omnivorous; the Giant Panda is almost exclusively a herbivore ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about even including that dogs are arguable carnivores in the article, since the two sources don't exactly seem to be arguing that: one seems to discuss the "inner lives" of dogs and the other classifies dogs in carnivora, which is not to say that they are obligate carnivores. Could we get more reliable sources on this? The only sources I have say they're omnivores while cats are obligate carnivores, and these sources are veterinary textbooks. Is there an equally reputable source arguing otherwise? Faunablues (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dogs may be meat-eaters, but the typical household pooch is better described as a scavenger than as a predator. But at that, dogs can range (like humans) from vegetarian (by human choice) to 100% carnivorous (traditional Inuit hunter and sled dogs), and still thrive. That suggests that the dog is an omnivore even if it is no less deadly a predator than a cat of like size.--Pbrower2a (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say that dogs are pure carnivores. It says that they are members of the order Carnivora. They would still be so classified if they all saw the light and turned vegan overnight. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Types and Breeds

St. Bernard dogs are not considered "herding dogs" and Labrador Retrievers are not considered "mastiffs". Please change these examples to breeds that make sense, or unlock the page to allow others to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.212.191 (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue. --Coaster1983 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Carbon footprint

I've removed a recently added item on claims about health risks to humans caused by the carbon footprint of pet dogs. This was apparently based on a single book written by two architects, and as such was obvious undue weight. --TS 03:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If dogs are contributing to the death of the human species and flooding the Maldives underwater it is of absolutely more relevance than anecdotal evidence that SOME dogs may have bitten SOME people. Nothughthomas (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention, I request fast consensus to keep the carbon footprint edits. PLease indicate your preference below. PLease stop editing this addition until consensus is achieved. Please lodge opinions above and clear votes below. Votes lodged in places other than the appropriate suppport/oppose/undecided columns will be ignored. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: Nothughthomas

Oppose:

Undecided:

Sorry, don't support keeping the "carbon footprint" edits at least in the current form. It's simply not an immediate health issue in the same way that a dog bite is. Thparkth (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't do "votes" to determine consensus. In particular we don't ignore somebody's opinion simply because they do not wish to participate in a straw poll.

I have already expressed my opinions on this, Nothughthomas. Your arguments above about the Maldives seem to be somewhat shrill and are in danger of being mistaken for parody. --TS 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of being "SHRILL" is not only not WP:AGF but is seriously in danger of violating WP:CIVIL. I will remind you that this entry is currently under Wikipedia probation subjecting editors to extraordinary penalties for disruptive editing and discussion tactics. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I referred to your arguments as shrill. I should have said that they do not carry much weight. --TS 04:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

reported for WP:CIVIL violation Nothughthomas (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nothughthomas, consensus isn't determined by voting. Please see the Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion guideline and Wikipedia:Consensus, which is policy.
• There is no need to do anything quickly here -- Rome wasn't built in a day and Wikipedia:There is no deadline is a good essay explaining why.
• If you think this is important, please try a Request for comment. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More Carbon Footprint

I'd like to know what people's feeling is regarding having some mention of the carbon footprint thing somewhere in the article. Is the consensus generally against mentioning it at all, or is the issue specifically with that particular wording in that particular section? I would personally be in favour of including it somewhere, in some form, if an additional reliable source could be found. Thparkth (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure. The "Health" section doesn't seem right for it, and at the moment it's almost like "Trivia" or "Miscellaneous information". Perhaps the gist of the article--which is based on a book by a pair of architects--might be well placed on pet, because they apparently assess the carbon footprint of several kinds of pet. But again, this sounds like a case where considerations of weight might go against inclusion. --TS 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're suggestion that this information belongs on "pet" rather than here is a good one. Really the issue (if there is an issue) is about the ethics of pet ownership - there's nothing substantively "doggish" about it. Thparkth (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it to a new article - call it Carbon footprints of domesticated animals to place it in the proper context; that could also cover issues such as methane emissions from cattle. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to the substantial, stated global impacts of climate change it would only be reasonable to place this information in the first paragraph of this entry. However, I could compromise to see it in another prominent place. I do think it is most appropriate in threats to humans, however. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that there are some articles whose subjects have a strong link to climate change, and others where the link is very tenuous. It seems to me that you see a strong link where others (it seems) see only a weak one. That's not meant to be a criticism - this is a judgement call after all. But as an uninvolved observer who has never edited this article, it seems to me that (so far) there is a consensus against including any major climate change-related information in the article, because most people see the link as too tenuous to be interesting. Do you think that's a fair assessment of the situation? Thparkth (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Scope, you first argued for the inclusion of the article probation tag on Keanu Reeves on the grounds that one of KR's films uses climate change as a plot device. You then started edit-warring over dog shortly after mentioning it in that discussion. I'm sorry, but I really don't think you are being serious here. I get the impression that you're trying to prove a point here because you disagree with the concept of article probation on climate change articles. Am I wrong? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression that you're trying to prove a point by the continued levying of these paper-thin and ridiculous accusations against me. I am absolutely tired of having every serious discussion continuously derailed by you showing up and either making a "joke" (that no one but you laughs at) or turning it into a wikilawyer session. This is a good discussion; please don't interrupt it by lobbing a hand grenade into the middle of it, once again. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as someone - even if it's only me - laughs, then it's not a wasted effort... -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) @ChrisO: Oh dude, don't mention cattle, I watchlist that too. The carbon emissions are especially complicated there, depending on feed type and quality. Plus you get to eat them at the end, which is frowned on for dogs in certain parts of the world. (And eating cows is ungood in some parts too) I wouldn't have a big problem with discussing the economic and human costs of keeping dogs as pets, but I'd be thinking first of the vast amount of decent-quality food involved. CO2/CH4 emissions are just one part of that spectrum of waste. But it would need to be balanced with the benefits that pets bring. Franamax (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

EXCELLENT POINT, Franny. The cattle entry does have an entire section devote to climate change impacts of cattle. (We need to tag that under current censorship protocols, BTW.) We should examine this for dog. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@Nothught, nah, first paragraph or "threats to humans", I think you'll need to make your case over time to the regular editors of this article to accomplish that. Why has the dog-threat now become so important that it needs to be featured here? Were they sneaking up on us? Has this been a source of regular commentary? Franamax (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothughthomas, attempting to direct people's attention to the alleged climatic impact of pet dogs by placing the information in the first paragraph is proof that you have a POV that you are pushing. One book is a tiny fraction of the books ever written on dogs. The methane emissions and deforestation associated with cattle have far more sourcing. The policies that stand against the addition of this material to Dog are WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:CONSENSUS. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AGF Nothughthomas (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have faith in your POV. There is nothing wrong with having a POV, but this particular POV isn't going in the article. Period. Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention everyone - apparently this very vibrant discussion about including carbon footprint has just been concluded by proclamation of User:Abductive. Any further attempt to broach this subject will be in violation of Decree-Law Number 1, issued by User:Abductive on this the 2nd Day of January in the Year of User:Abductive One. Compliance is mandatory. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So far everyone but you says it's not going in. I suspect that you will not prevail. Abductive (reasoning) 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Thparkth seems to disagree with Emperor Abductive. Now may be your cue to declare a State of Siege and order the Abductive gendarmerie to arrest Thparkth and ensure your "everyone but you" statement is accepted without question from your pliant subjects. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Thparkth as a full supporter of yours. I will wager that you will not prevail. After all, you have been reverted by a number of users, and all it does is attract the attention of more editors who, on average, say the material should not be included. Again, I take a probabilistic view of this; perhaps enough editors will support the inclusion of this material. Perhaps that will not happen. I say it won't. Abductive (reasoning) 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not anyone's supporter (or anyone's enemy). I'm just trying to assess and establish a consensus. Maybe other people will weigh in over the next few days, but right now it looks as if the consensus is clearly against including this information. Thparkth (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Two in favor and two against doesn't really equal a consensus of anything, despite Abductive's edict that "discussion is closed - PERIOD!" or whatever it was he said. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the discussion was closed, I said the material wasn't going in. Rest assured, it's not going in. Abductive (reasoning) 07:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference then? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) So there's no consensus then to include the material, right? We'll have to see what a few more editors say over the next few days. Franamax (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say that unless there are better sources for the assertion that dogs (in particular) have a particular carbon footprint I would strongly oppose this information being added to this particular article. If there is something to say about domesticated animals causing an increased carbon footprint (and there well may be) then I suggest placing this in something like Pet. Otherwise we're going to get this sort of thing in cat, rabbit, guinea pig and even Pet skunk. I think that consensus will be to keep this out of this particular article until better and more reliable sources can be found. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The ecological impact of dogs merits discussion in the article. AS noted by User:Wtmitchell below, there is significant coverage to justify added it to the article. The ultimate goal is to have a comprehensive article on the domestic dog. As such, both negative and positive aspects of dogs need to be discussed. This article is unbalanced discusses the positive aspects more than the negative aspects. Discussing the ecological impact will help balance the article. I think that the an ecological impact subsection should be added to Biology section.

Carbon Footprint 2

This edit reverted the addition of the following from the article, saying, "rv WP:UNDUE weight

In their 2009 book "Time to Eat the Dog, the Real Guide to Sustainable Living," New Zealand scientists Robert and Brenda Vale charged that a medium-size dog had a carbon footprint of 2.1 acres compared with slightly more than one acre for a standard sport utility vehicle. The claim spurred heated debate between climate change theory proponents and climate change theory skeptics about the efficacy of dogs as pets, with Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute noting "there is no question but that pets do exert a claim on resources."

The removed material cited this ABC News article as a supporting source. That article highlights this claim, made in the book Brenda Vale; Robert James Dennis Vale (2009), Time to Eat the Dog?: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, Thames & Hudson, ISBN 9780500287903.

This Reuters article quotes the book's authors as saying, "We're not actually saying it is time to eat the dog. We're just saying that we need to think about and know the (ecological) impact of some of the things we do and that we take for granted.", and goes on to say that constructing and driving the jeep for a year requires 0.41 hectares of land, while growing and manufacturing a dog's food takes about 0.84 ha -- or 1.1 ha in the case of a large dog such as a German shepherd.

This Vancouver Sun article identifies the Vales as specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington. and reports that they urge per owners to to make sure their animal is dual purpose, "... Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table."

This article in the New Zealand Dominion Post further quotes the article as saying,

If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around, ... A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable.

This article in New Scientist speaks of the book, saying,

To measure the ecological paw, claw and fin-prints of the family pet, the Vales analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food. They calculated, for example, that a medium-sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food. At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal. That means that over the course of a year, Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year - far more for beef and lamb - and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives him a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.

Meanwhile, an SUV - the Vales used a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser in their comparison - driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares - less than half that of a medium-sized dog.

This Yahoo News article says that New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same, reporting that Barret said, "Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat".

This article in Idaho Falls Today asks rhetorically, "Should they be taxed for owing a dog? What about other wild animals? How should we measure their contribution to the carbon footprint? Should countries be given carbon credits for eliminating wild animals that put carbon into the environment?"

Another book, Bernan (2008), "Draft Marine Bill: Oral and written evidence", Draft Marine Bill, Great Britain. Parliament. Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill, vol. Volume 2, The Stationery Office, p. 149], ISBN 9780104013533 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help), about a bill designed to establish a new UK-wide strategic system of marine planning, says that research shows that the biggest factor influencing where dog owners exercise their dogs is whether or not they can exercise the dog off a lead; if it is not possible to do this in their local area, over 40% have said they would drive elsewhere (that, of course, has implications re the carbon footprint of dogs). That second book, though not targeted at the topic, goes on to discuss health, social, and economic benefits of dog ownership.

WP:UNDUE says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It looks to me as if this has sufficient visibility in reliable sources to warrant a mention in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good compilation. It seems to be almost exclusively related to a single work, the Vale book. That could all be in an article about the book and maybe that article would meet notability. The question is how much discussion of the recently published views of two authors should be in an overview article. Is there peer-reviewed work on this? Is there a review addressing the quality of the science in the book? And what is the relevance of comparing a dog to a "standard" SUV anyway? Can a dog be compared to paving a km of road? Having a shower once a day? Why are we using an SUV ratio? That's what I mean by undue weight. As far as the general issue of the environmental impact of pet dogs (and their utility), I'm OK with that. Just more widespread coverage than what one book says. Franamax (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

These sound like fair comments to me. I think we don't want to give undue weight to fringe science here. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. If the book is being taken seriously by serious sources, its ideas should certainly be referred to. But absolutely not in the lede or anywhere close to it - in the context of all the things that can be said about dogs, it's a relatively unimportant and little-sourced concept. The ideal would, as someone else suggested, probably be a separate article on the environmental impact of pets, to which we could link. Barnabypage (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fighting Dogs

Although it is inhumane, the sport of dogfighting has greatly shaped and effected the domestication of dogs, lets not forget that many of the breeds we see today are in existance because of the unnatural selection people used to breed dogs. This is why we see pitbulls, boxers, bull dogs, rot wilers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.98.61 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendrotek 10:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Just one subspecies?!

Wait -- so just the one subspecies encapsules all the different shapes and sizes of dogs? That's freaking amazing. -- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.62.25 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

yup, oddly enough, we consider two animals as distinct as the English sheepdog and Chihuahua to be the same subspecies, check out the article on Species for more info on the trickiness of all this. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the dingo is classified as a seperate subspecies and sometimes even described as wolves although they are clearly domestic dogs (although not domesticated in the strictest sense just like many other dogs).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dogs have a genetic peculiarity that allows for a much wider variance in traits than other mammals. Thus dogs can be bred for a wider range of traits much quicker than for example horses or cows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.223.201 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC) All this talk about carnivores... AHH! Calm down it's life ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.166.229 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Working dogs - Hearing assistance dogs

I propose a link to Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, which is already a good article. We should make this link within the section of this article named Working dogs.

• • I have heard of assistance mini ponies that wears shoes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horselover25 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Early Roles & Pets

I teach about the changing role of the dog in family life so am happy to draft something for these sections - "pets" or "companion animals"? Marj (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I think using pets would be acceptable.Coaster1983 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Those sections done. Edits or comments welcomed. Marj (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of adopted dogs

A query on the latest edit: The percentage of adopted dogs have increased since the mid 90s from around 25 percent up to 60 to 75 percent around 2004 in many shelters in the United States.[82] What does this mean? That 60-75 percent of dogs going into shelters were previously adopted? Or that 60-75 percent of dogs who go into shelters are subsequently adopted? Or something else? Does the many shelters phrase imply that this is not an overall figure for all shelters, but simply the experience of some? Barnabypage (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've copy edited it as the prose wasn't that great. The citation is from a source which is on Google Books, so if anyone needs to look it up it's there. I'm wanting to expand the section a bit more with some non-US information (for instance in the UK the vast majority of dogs are taken directly from council pounds and are given to rescue charities to the extent where in London, where I live, the public can't actually get a rescue from a government run pound - of course I'm trying to find a reference that actually explains that). Miyagawa (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Have you looked at Battersea's site or indeed at the Wikipedia Battersea article? There might be a source there. Barnabypage (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An article on dogs and shelters in Australia - may have useful info, if somone wants to follow it up http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/100_jaws070102.pdf Marj (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pack Animals

The line "despite evidence that a dog does not live in a pack relationship with humans" is misleading. The article that was referenced for this statement only theorizes that domesticated dogs do not behave like captive and non-captive wolves. The article provides no evidence that all domesticated dogs do not have pack relationships with humans. I suggest this blanket statement be removed or reworded so that it does not present facts without evidence. Alea098 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-worded for clarity and an alternate reference given. Marj (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I think that it would be also interesting to mention to very large "livestock dogs" in "predation" part because opposite to what is mentioned in this part, there are also some breeds such as "Kangal dog" which guards the livestock against wolves and other wild animals. The Kangal dog is extensively used in Anatolia to protect the sheeps from wild animals and also they are successfully used against cheetahs in Africa.

Bellekci (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit request from 69.168.144.133, 31 March 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The scientific name of dog is CANIS CANIS and the scientific name of wolf is CANIS LUPUS. There is not such a thing as CANIS LUPUS FAMILIARIS.

69.168.144.133 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference, please! If you have an authoritative source of the preferred synonym - Canis lupus familiaris synonym: Canis familiaris synonym: Canis domesticus synonym: Canis canis Marj (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct binomial, which this Article used to have a while ago, is Canis familiaris. Since wolf hybrids are generally sterile (and it is not hearsay to check with a vet and a Genetics Professor), the domestic dog has in fact speciated in captivity from its immediate ancestor, Canis lupus. Nevertheless, Canis canis is also an invalid name. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal communication is non-recoverable from the reader's perspective and as such can't be included in the reference list. They can be cited in text as they are referred to, but we would need names and dates, and the authority of the source. Marj (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Many sources list the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, but others, including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list it as a subspecies of Canis lupus - C. l. familiaris. It would be nice if there was uniform agreement amongst taxonomic authorities, but there is not. Marj ([[User talk:Mdk572|talk) 05:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the same is true of the domestic cat. (I've seen a plethora of primary and secondary articles that say Felis domesticus, and for what it's worth that name does yield the most hits on Academic Search Elite and the like.) That is not relevant here about dogs, but what is relevant to all taxonomy is the concept of speciation. Noting that wolf-hybrids are (like mules in this regard) normally sterile, the precise thing to say would be that what used to be Canis lupus familiaris a short time ago in evolution has since diverged into its own species, thereby becoming Canis familiaris. It is a relatively new species that apparently evolved in captivity, but once a species evolves, it ceases to be part of its ancestral species. That is how evolution continues. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with you on that, though I have reservations that "normally sterile" is the same as "reproductive isolation" and in any case there is some disagreement among scientists regarding the importance of reproductive isolation in the speciation process - but I do repeat my initial statement. To change it (it is used throughout Wikipedia afaics) we need an authoritative reference that states that Canis familiaris is the preferred binomial. Marj (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The sterility of resulting offspring if interbred negates the possibility of grandchildren (or grandpuppies as the case may be), and in that sense "normally sterile" does constitute "reproductive isolation" despite a 1-generation capacity. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a taxonomist and don't have a dog in this fight on the issue, but some quick googling turned up [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and a lot of other sources which use the canis familiaris designation. I observe that WP:DUE requires that WP articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal preference is Canis familiaris fwiw but my point remains: We need an authoritative reference that says that one form is preferred before we change all of the instances of the term. A quick Google Scholar search turns up a large number of uses of Canis lupis familiaris by authoritative sources so the Google search puts us no closer to an agreed edit. Marj (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply a suggestion that all the instances of the term be changed. My point was that the WP:NPOV policy appears to require that alternative terms be given due weight according to their prominence (and not according to editorial preferences about taxonomic terminology). I suggest that a second paragraph be added to the Taxonomy section explaining existence of the alternative terms and saying that this article, for purposes of consistency uses c.l.f (or c.f., or whatever term it uses). I note that this seems to be covered pretty well by Coppinger, Raymond; Coppinger, Lorna (2002), "What's in the name : Canis familiaris?", Dogs: a new understanding of canine origin, behavior, and evolution, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226115634. I think that would be better done by someone who is more invested in this article than by me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NPOV comes into it. The policy at issue here is that requests to edit semi-protected articles must be a clear and specific description of the requested change accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. Marj (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to Coppinger & Coppinger today, but Coppinger, Spector and Miller in What is a Wolf? say "the domestic dog is technically Canis lupus familiaris" Do you have a quote and page number explaining the source of alternate terms? If you can edit Taxonomy yourself please do so. If you wish someone else to edit it, then please provide the required information and the source of that information. Marj (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Authoritative reference located and Taxonomy revised. Marj (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request from Hoser43, 1 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

death

Hoser43 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't the faintest idea what that is all about.  Chzz  ►  16:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Dogs and Law

I propose that a new section in this article or a new article be created on laws that relate to dogs. The dog license article only deals with licensing laws in selected western countries. Dog laws also cover negligence, leash requirements, breeding, dog attacks, noise pollution, etc.

One website with extensive information on dog bites and applicable laws (in the USA, and also relevant to Common Law) is [14]. There should of course be a list of dog laws by country.

Also please note that the article on Dog attacks, which has a brief section on legal issues (US only) is not included in the main Dog template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.47.238.225 (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the tension between custody law and property law when determining the outcomes for a pet dog in a divorce case? The disposition is usually based on property law, but visitation rights can be given. Marj (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it if you can work it in smoothly and keep it short. If it gets too long, concider creating a new sub-article Laws Applying to Dogs or some such, that you could link the reader to a smooth and appropriate way. Chrisrus (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why "Familiaris"?

Why did he decide to call it "Familiaris"? I assumed at first that he meant "familiar dog" as in "the dog that everyone already knows/thinks about first, but could it have been "family dog", as in the familiar English term "family dog" or "family dog" as in "the whole 'family' of breeds, or some such? Readers of this article want to know, and I would like something to call it in Engish to distinguish it from "Canis lupus Dingo". Chrisrus (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's "family dog" or "friendly dog". Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this! I accept this answer. May ask you, Tony a favor?

First, do you think that this information would make a good addition to the article?

Second, do yout think adding the last five words as you have written them, as a parenthetical after where it says "Canis lupus familaris"; do you think that this would be the best way to do it?

Third, how should we cite it? Chrisrus (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Adjective familiāris: 1.of or pertaining to servants 2.of or pertaining to a household or family 3.familiar, intimate, friendly 4.of or belonging to one's own self, country, etc. 5.customary, habitual 6.fitting, appropriate. Marj (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any record of the particular meaning Linnaeus was intending. Familiaris appears regularly in species names Certhia familiaris Common Treecreeper. Marj (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn. I thought we had a definitive answer. So Canis familaris might have meant "servant dog", "household dog", "family dog", "friendly dog", "our own dog", "customary dog", and, well, probably not "fitting or appropriate dog".

I did a search for "familiaris" trying to find some kind of pattern. I did find, as you indicated, somewhat of a low statistical correlation between the "Common ____" and "_____ familaris" on Wikipedia. A search for the word "familiaris" did result in a number of species called Somesuchus familiaris, but a short search for some of the very many articles about species entitled "Common Suchandsuch" and found that by far the majority of the small sample weren't called "Suchandsuchus familiaris". Enough were, though, for me to think that there is a precedent for translating "Canis (l.) familaris" as "Common dog", but nothing you might call definitive proof that this is the best translation for the Latin phrase, as opposed to the more obvious "Familiar dog." "Familiar dog" might cover quite a few of the meanings you provide, either simultaniously or alternatively, so there's that, as well. Oh well, I suppose I should give up - it seemed like a nice idea. Unless....? Chrisrus (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a nice idea. There is a bird related site that explains why birds were given the particular descriptors - but there doesn't seem to be a lot of logic behind it. It's just a matter of finding that translation in print somewhere. It's good that you put it on the record, and it would make a good addition to the article. Marj (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Please let me know if you ever happen to find the type of citation that you describe. Chrisrus (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nature and Scope of this Article

Recently, this article seemed to be just about one subspecies, Canis lupus familaris. Now, it seems to be moving in the direction of being about both C.l.familaris and Canis lupus dingo, a subspecies union (clade) marked by Mammal Species of the World as "Domestic Dog". I do not object to this, but at some point the taxobox and lead sentence should be changed to reflect this fact. Chrisrus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the recent additions that are specifically about the dingo are interesting, but a sidetrack, and would be better in the dingo article. Marj (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. There are certain concerns. If this article were to be about both Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo, how many changes would we have to make to it? I mean, is there really very much that it says now that doesn't also apply to C.l.dingo? Actually, I should point out that, according to the article dingo, the animal which the taxon C.l.dingo refers to includes more than just the traditional Australian animal from which it gets it's name. It now includes a native dog of New Guinea as well as one found in Southeast Asia. And several more dog breeds now catagorized as familiaris, such as the Carolina Dog (I saw this on TV, but the article seems to confim that it's a suspect), the Telomian, and the canaan dog, just might be catagorized as Canis lupus dingo as well. Anyway, that means trouble for the Dingo article, if it's going to be about just the Australian Dingo or going to expand to include everything that C.l.dingo should turn out to include, but maybe no trouble for this one.

The way I read the comments at the Mammal Species of the World's "Canis Lupus" page, however, it seems like they just might make a change about this very thing in the next edition. They call the separation of familiaris and C.l.digo"provisional" and seem to give us "permission" to think of both subspecies together as one subspecies called "domestic dog", even though they don't officially give it a taxon. (If they do unite them, I'm betting it'll be called "Canis lupus domesticus", as that used to be a name for familiaris and is how you say "domestic dog" in Latin.) They seem to be saying that the only reason they haven't done so has something to do with the "synonyms" lining up right. By this I think they mean they worried if they included all the historical names for dingo and all the historical names for the familiar dog in one big subspecies, people might think that the dingo ones used to refer to all dogs instead of just the dingo. Right after I finish this paragraph, I'll include three different links to MSW3, so you can read it yourself to see if you think I seem to be misunderstanding anything. The first one is the page for Canis lupus and the comments are kind of long, but what I'm referring to here is just the first part. The other two will be the pages for the two subspecies, which don't have any comments except for the words "domestic dog" in brackets.

1. http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738
2. http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000752
3. http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751

Anyway, that's all just "on background", if you know what I mean. What would have to be done with this article if we included C.l.dingo in it's scope? The taxobox would have to be changed a little bit, the lead would need to reflect it, and the taxonomy section, maybe would have to be tweeked a bit to make all of this clear in an appropriate way. Actually, maybe not, as it does do a pretty good job of this right now I think, kudos to whoever wrote that part. Then, maybe we wouldn't need the recent changes, and the article dingo could say "The dingo is a domestic dog" and link to this article, and it wouldn't be in effect saying "Canis lupus dingo is a Canis lupus familiaris", which doesn't make sence. In fact, anyone who does an internal link anywhere on Wikipedia when writing about dogs would be reffing to all the "domestic dog"s, not just familiaris, so then if some primitive breed does get switched from one subspecies to the other, it wouldn't leave the referent dog.

Anyway, is that all that we would have to change? Are there any statements or such in this article that wouldn't also apply to the dingo? If we did these things, could we then undo the recent chages? Those sentences seem just kind of plopped in right in the middle of an article otherwise notable for its smooth flow. Chrisrus (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Have you ever wished they hadn't united the dog and the wolf as one species? They don't do that with the cat and the wildcat, you know.Chrisrus (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that this article is long enough just dealing with C. l. f. and that much of the history/roles with humans etc is different for the two su-species. I think anyone searching for domestic dogs on Wikipedia would be looking for pet dogs. A link to the other subspecies would be sufficient for those searching more broadly. Marj (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The article cited on the Dingo page says only that "Austronesian people transported the dingo from Asia to Australia and other islands in between 1,000 and 5,000 years ago. Pure dingoes occur only as remnant populations in central and northern Australia and in Thailand, and they are threatened by cross-breeding with domestic dogs." There is no agreement that the NGSD and the dingo belong in the same taxon, in that article or in the Koler-Matznick et al piece. Marj (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent additions could be cut and pasted to a discussion topic - until we find a better place in the narrative for them. Marj (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You make good points. First of all, this article is already quite long. On the other hand, the way I envision it, it might not have to be made all that much longer to cover both adequately. They are basically the same animal, and there isn't a whole lot beyond a tweek to the taxobox and the lead wouldn't do the trick. As I see it, anyway, I could be wrong I'd have to take a close look at the article again with this in mind.

You are right to include that quotation from the dingo page. The most intersting thing about it, as I see it, is that is an example of the term "domestic dog" being used to refer specifically to Canis lupus familiaris only and specifically not C.l.dingo. This proves that the term domestic dog is sometimes used to mean specifically familiaris and specifically not to C.l.dingo.

I would also like to point out that the opposite is true in the lead. The lead says "the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) is a domestic dog", and links domestic dog to this article. So the lead of the article Dingo says Canis lupus dingo = Canis lupus familiaris, which, of course, can't be, you can't say valid taxon A = valid taxon B. It only says this because the term "domestic dog" there links to this article here, though. If it didn't, if it linked, say, to a disambiguation page, or if it were written the dingo is a domestic dog without putting anthing in brackets it wouldn't be saying that. It also wouldn't be saying that if we changed the taxobox and lead of this article to read "C.l.familaris + C.l.dingo." Then, it would be saying "C.l.dingo is a domestic dog (union of C.l.familiaris + dingo)", which is what must have been intended and would be another, different use of the term "domestic dog" from the context where they talked about dingoes mating with domestic dogs.

You are correct that the article does say at that point that C.l.dingo only means Australian Dingo and the Thai "Dingo" (which, by the way, there is no article about that I can find. What is the Thai Dingo?) and excludes the New Guinea Singing Dog. That line contradicts the map in the aricle and Mammal Species of the World, which list the old taxon for the New Guinea Singing Dog, hallstromi, along with the other old synonyms for "Dingo." This means that they are grouping the New Guinea Singing Dog as C.l.dingo and there is no sign that they have any interest in revisiting the matter. Now, Koler-Matznick disagree with the decision and they and some experts who agree with that position may be right about that or they may be wrong; we at Wikipedia are not in a position to decide. The Mammalogy Society or whatever, it's their job and we just report. Otherwise, think of the thousands of papers suggesting that one taxon or another should be changed, how could Wikipedia deal? Until it is changed by MSW3 or some such, or unless they comment that a taxon is in dispute or simply provisional or some such, we at Wikipedia have to go with something for taxoboxes, at least. MSW3 has heard their case and those of others and ruled against them and taken away the species and subspecies status for the New Guinea Singing Dog and put it in with C.l.dingo. There is a terrible bitter mess at the article New Guinea Singing Dog about this, I know, and it has spilled over into the dingo article at that point. Some of the editors there seem to include Matznick herself and many battling experts and breeders and passionate "singer lovers" and such and they put up such a terrible fight that if you ever would like to get involved with that situation be my guest, but I have, and I'm saying that, if you choose to even change a comma there, just don't say I didn't warn you; it's an emotional shouting match. Outside in the rest of the world, everyone else have long since moved on and accepted the fact that the it's been grouped with C.l.dingo.

Anyway, be that as it may, it doesn't matter for this topic. Even if we leave out the NGSD, there's still the fact that there are these two dogs, the Thai Dingo and the Australian Dingo, which are sometimes called "dogs" or "domestic dogs" but are not covered by this article because they are C.l.dingo and not C.l.familiaris. Or they are covered, actually, because almost all of this article would be true of them as much as it is true of any dog, so it's basically covered. All that we'd need to do would be to adjust the taxobox and lead and maybe another thing or two here and there, not much, and add a line or two in the history and evolution. I repeat this so we get back to the point and not have to talk about the tedious NGSD stuff here any more.

I like very much your idea of removing the clunky dropped-in stuff that entered the article a few days ago and to paste it here so that we can see if we can find a way to work it in more smoothly, if at all. I agree with you if you believe like you seem to me to believe that it has had a detrimental effect on the reader in comparison to the nice smooth way the article had been last week and the most important thing is the article. Chrisrus (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether this is reported in a single, citable spot, but from memory the dominant belief is that the Australian dingo came from Asia, and there are remnant populations still in Thailand. So there isn't a Thai Dingo, but an Australian Dingo in Thailand. We also have the problem of the confusion between domestic dog i.e. pet dog and Domestic Dog the classification for the species. The NGSD article looks like something to stay away from - the lack of argreement over origins and classifications seems to be something to be fought over rather than reported on. Marj (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could ask how it could be an Australian Dingo if it's never been to Australia, but I think I know what you mean; the southeast Asian dingo is basically the same as the Australian one; southeast Asian dingos existed before the Australian Dingo; they came from southeast Asian ones. But my question is, if I go to Thailand and find the dingoes there that are referenced on the map here, what are those normally called? Certainly the Thai people had a name for them before they became known to be c.l.dingos. But more importantly, English-speaking people also must have had a name for these dogs of Thailand besides "dingo". Or maybe not! Why don't I go up to the search window there, put in "Dingo", and then go over on the side, send it to the Thai langauge verson of the Dingo article, try using "Google translate" on it and report back here to tell you all what I have learn. I encourage you to do the same. Chrisrus (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at this: [15]. Google translate had a terrible time with this one. It says

Casino Gold (English: Dingo) Wolf species one. Found only at Australia only A a science thatCanis lupus dingoGold Casino is the only wolf, only it looks like Dog House most Therefore assumed that the ancestors of Gold Casino. Descendants of the dog house East Asia (including Thailand a) by one in Australia about 3000-4000 years ago when Gold Casino classified as animals belong to only one in the Family Dog. (Canidae) found in Australia.

I wonder about the Australian Shepherd too :-) I think "Australian" means something similar to "Oriental" or "From somewhere other than here" Marj (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in awe of your resourcefulness. But I think that is perfectly clear. There is a dog in Thailand known as the "Gold Casino" that looks like an earlier "dog house" . Descendants of this "dog house" also ended up in Australia. Love it! Marj (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Info on "Dingo"

These additions are removed to the Discussion page, pending a decision on where to best place them in the article.

• In Mammal Species of the World edition 3 (MSW3), "domestic dog" means a clade between taxa uniting the Canis lupus familaris and Canis lupus dingo.

• It should further be noted, that while the current edition of Mammal Species of the World uses the names Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo, it still classifies the dingo as a domestic dog.

Further discussion welcomed. Marj (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing these edits pending discussion, rather than deleting them, is a courtesy to the editor, and a separate issue from the relationships between the Australian dingo, the wild dogs in Thailand, New Guinea and America that are being grouped with the Australian dingo, and the pet dog. Marj (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Info on Number of Subspecies called "Domestic Dogs"

I don't think that we necessarily have to work this information into the artcle per se, as it's already in there, although the situation might be elucidated there a bit more clearly, I suppose, we can take a look at that, but let's not get distracted for the moment. What it means for the article is that the taxobox shouldn't just read "Canis lupus familiaris" but rather "Canis lupus familiaris + Canis lupus dingo" (and maybe the paranthetical "(see text)"). It also means that the lead should be re-worded to reflect this fact, but not in too much detail; that is mostly clarified in detail in the body already. Then anyone could use the term and internal links "domestic dog" and dog to mean either only familiaris (as when discussing "dingos mating with dogs", and also sometimes to mean "C.l.dingo + familiaris" as in "The Dingo is a dog", or when talking about another dog which is not familiaris, but nevertheless still a dog, as is the case with the New Guinea Singing Dog and other dogs which are not not familiaris, but are still basically dogs in the broader sense of the word "dog". This lines up perfectly not only with the use of the word "dog" in common English in different contexts; it lines up not only with the facts as summarized by the National Society of the Taxonomy of Mammals or whoever it is that is responcible for the publication of Mammal Species of the World; but also it lines up perfectly with the simple truth of the animals independent of the language we use; there are at least two basic genetic strains which one could see as either one subspecies or two. Chrisrus (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see what problem would be solved by having two distinct subspecies covered in the article, with both included in the taxobox. I can see a number of problems this would create. Let's keep this article about the "pet dog" with a mention of "domestic dogs" that have reverted to the wild and a link to their pages. I wouldn't want to see the arguments about the dingo, NGSD etc transferred to this page which has been very harmoniously edited to date. Marj (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pack structure

I think this sentence needs to be changed, at least to exclude the part about wolf dominance hierarchies:

"Feral dogs show little of the complex social structure or dominance hierarchy present in wolf packs"

Leading wolf researcher David Mech has spent a good deal of time recanting the whole "alpha wolf" meme that he accidentally started, based on observation of artificially-created wolf packs in captive pens.

Here's what he now says: Rather than viewing a wolf pack as a group of animals organized with a “top dog” that fought its way to the top, or a male-female pair of such aggressive wolves, science has come to understand that most wolf packs are merely family groups formed exactly the same way as human families are formed. That is, maturing male and female wolves from different packs disperse, travel around until they find each other and an area vacant of other wolves but with adequate prey, court, mate, and produce their own litter of pups.

More information here: [16]

Thank you for this link. He seems to be saying that the leader or number one wolf/wolves and the hierarchical leader of the wolf pack is usually called the "alpha male" or "alpha female" but that term isn't as good as "father wolf" or "mother wolf", and he gives some reasons and exceptions. He does not seem to be saying that that wolves don't have packs, that these packs don't have complex social structure, or that they don't have a dominance hierarchy. He only worries that the effect of the word "alpha" on the listener or reader will imply that they got there by fighting, but in the wild it's more decided by who is the father or the mother in most cases. So my understanding of this does seem to basically agree with yours.

Personally, I don't see how this calls into question the article's assertion that wolves do form complex packs characterized by a dominance hierarchy. They do have a "top dog", but they usually didn't fight their way to the top, they got to the top the same way that a mother dog does, just by having puppies and then dominating them from the time they are born or very small. So no, they didn't fight their way to the top, but they do have a top. The statement from the article does not say anything about how the domiance hierarchy was formed or maintained, it merely refers to it's existence. So I agree completely with your interpretation about what this reliable source says and I believe David Mech says other than this: Using terms like "social hierarchy," or "alpha, beta, gamma, delta" this does not imply violence. Not to me, at least, but if it does so in the reader's mind, perhaps a citation or two from this reliable source would be an important addition to this article as long as it somehow stays focused on the referent of this article, which is dogs and how they are different from other Gray Wolf subspecies. Chrisrus (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just mention a couple of other sources, in case they are useful: [17], [18]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Three Dog Night issue

I'd like to point out that, contrary to popular belief, the term, "Three Dog Night" did not originate with the Australian Aborigines, as stated in the article. It, in fact, was coined by the Inuit, who needed three dogs to stay warm in their harsh environment. Dingos, the Aborigine dog cited, are too wild and aggressive to be used as living blankets, and are known for attacking owners, people, and babies. Huskies, however, are not (though they have been known to attack running babies).

To put it shortly, the term, "Three Dog Night" did NOT originate with the Aborigines as stated in the article, but with the Inuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshboy1991 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please give a reference, otherwise these are just your opinions. Marj (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's actually not that much reference to it online, but in a book my mother has on the Inuit, it mentions that it is not Aboriginal, but Alaskan in fact. I have to find the book, but for now, here's a link: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/28/messages/633.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshboy1991 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's quite likely that a version of the phrase was used independently by a number of early peoples. However the band "Three Dog Night" were trying to think of a name that would show that the band had three lead singers, when singer Danny Hutton's girlfriend came up with the suggestion based on a magazine article about the Australian Aboriginals, who on cold nights, would sleep beside their dogs for warmth. The band gets a lot more lines in publications than the meaning of old terms describing the weather, so this origin for the term is the most widely cited. The article doesn't say that the Aboriginal Australians used the term before Aboriginal Canadians, but they did use it and rural Australians still do use it. Marj (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW This Dingo sleeps on my bed (with the cattle dog) and I have yet to wake up missing any bits of my anatomy. Marj (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like you're right after all. Well, until I find more accurate evidence to support my view, I guess we'll say that it is still unclear who created the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshboy1991 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that this was from the native people of the very south tip of South America. Anyway I think it is way too trivial to mention in this article. It belongs in the article on the band. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Health risks to humans

This is way too USA centric, and recentist. Rabies is not even mentioned. It still kills thousands of people each year in India and Africa. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Dog fish" example a bit silly?

First of all, this article is excellent. I just have a tiny quibble with something I maybe notice as a person who spends a lot of time editing disambiguation pages for animal words.

This part here that says "A few animals have "dog" in their common names but are not canids, such as the prairie dog and the dog fish." While the prairie dog is a good example of this and may be necessary to say, the dog fish example seems to be speaking to a person who doesn't speak English, which is the only thing we are supposed to assume is true of the readers.

Anyone who speaks English instinctively knows that an animal called, for example, a duck eagle, is an eagle named after ducks for some reason. The same rules of English tell us that if an eagle duck is not really a duck, some disambiguation is in order, but no one has to be told that it's not really an eagle. Think about milk chocolate and chocolate milk, for example. One is the head of the noun phrase and the other is a modifier. This is why the case of prairie dog is listed on the dog (disambiguation) page, but dog fish and dogwood are not.

Therefore, I would like to edit it so that it reads:

"A few animals, such as the prairie dog, have the word "dog" in their common names but are not canids."

 Done

Dog breeds

The article says: "As the modern understanding of genetics developed, humans began to intentionally breed dogs for a wide range of specific traits." They were doing this in ancient Egypt. It does not depend on modern understanding of genetics, athough this helped the process. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is totally inaccurate. I think you should try and change howlers like this whenever possible instead of just flagging them up on a talk page ... Bossk-Office (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked, so we cannot just edit it. The talk page, however, does provide a nice forum for working out just what it should say. I think it would be simplest to describe it all in the same place (perhaps a simple sentence as an in-line list), but as a series of developments: 1st: unintentional human selection. Humans just get along with, raise, and promote the propagation of individuals with traits they like. This could have gone on for over 10,000 years with substantial results. 2nd: intentional breeding, without knowledge of evolution or genetics other than just figuring out that traits are passed on. 3rd: Artificial selection that uses understanding of genetics (modern breeders).

Here is a stab: Humans cared for dogs that had desirable traits, and eventually began to intentionally breed dogs for a wide range of specific traits68.106.25.212 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

Horowitz'a Inside of a Dog pulls together a lot of the research on the domestication of dogs Marj (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

History and evolution – Non-Wolf Theories?

Should the page perhaps include a word or two on the dissenting idea that the dog is not a domesticated wolf after all, but was ever its own species? Obviously people love to challenge accepted ideas, but there appears to be little real evidence for wolf origins – genetically and morphologically dogs are closer to other canids, etc. See linked article:

http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/OriginOfTheDog.pdf

Perhaps this matter comes up all the time on this talk page. If so, I apologize. Bossk-Office (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have some concerns about an article that misrepresents facts right from the introduction - "The dog origin alternatives are: (1) an origin from golden jackal (Canis aureus) (Lorenz 1954)" when Lorenz actually believed that some dog breeds descended from wolf-like ancestors and other from jackal-like canids. He himself preferred the wolf-breeds as he called them. Marj (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Amace81, 11 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The last paragraph of the "Health risks to humans" reads as follows: "There were 1,122 dog attack incidents reported by all New South Wales councils from 1 January 2010 to 31 March 2010. This number included harassment and bites by dogs on people and animals. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was responsible for the largest number of attacks in New South Wales in the early part of 2010.[76]"

What relevance does dog attack statistics for a particular state in Australia and for a particular (and short) time period have in a general worldwide article on dogs? I believe this paragraph should be deleted.

Amace81 (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from the paragraph. I agree it is not particularly helpful. a raw number of attacks over a short amount of time does not tell us anything. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

unicode pictographs

When 6.0 goes final, we might want to mention 🐕, 🐩, and 🐶. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Dog News!

You may not have a subscription to Science News, but I do and I think it's ok if I quote the just one line or two of this: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57390/title/Who_reined_the_dogs_in

"The largest-ever genetic family tree of dogs and wolves traces dogs’ domestic origin to the region, an international group of researchers reports online March 17 in Nature."

You really should check it out, but what you really need is someone with a subscription to Nature and the expertise to summarize it here. I’ll give you my reading, for what it’s worth:

We now know that most, but not all, come from the Middle East or Europe; that for the most part the old genetic evidence that indicated they might have come from China, they have enough to say now that that was wrong. East Asian dog breeds are not older, as we thought, as this article says.

This doesn't mean the search for the first dog is over, but it narrows it down a bit. The way I see it, it makes sense that the they are more primitive, East Asian breeds and dingoes, because they’re younger, not older. See, they evolved recently, so they haven't had time to come as far away from the proto-wolf-dog as, for example, my Spaniel Casey, at least in part. That’s how I make sense of it in my mind, anyway.

The old work was done on mitochondrial DNA only, as this article says. This new stuff is on DNA scattered across the whole genome, so is clearer, and it jives better with the archeological evidence in the article. The article is presenting them as contradictory, East Asia from the mDNA, West Asia/Europe for the archeological. This will help the article harmonize that, it seems to me. Asian breeds aren't as genetically diverse and have a more recent common ancestor, is what the article seems to say, so that means the articles about the Inus, Chinese Shar Pei, and chow chow, etc., as well as those that fall into the category of Canis lupus dingo; the Telomian, Borneo dog, the Australian Dingo, New Guinea Singing Dog, etc, those we think of as less domesticated; it seems like they are primitive because they were still interbreeding with Chinese wolves, still intermediate Wolf/dog forms, when they were genetically isolated as breeds or varieties or what have you, landraces maybe.

“It makes sense to me that the earliest domestic dogs would breed with wolves when the distribution of the two overlapped, which is what probably happened in East Asia,”

It warns that this not only does ‘’’not’’’ mean that they've found the exact moment of domestication, but reason dictates there's a limit to how precise we're ever going to get to a very exact date because:

“It was probably a pretty fluid interchange for hundreds or thousands of years between protodogs and wolves,”

The new tree, I can’t see it in Nature, but as I understand the way this article describes it, it can help many articles across the Dog project. They say it shows, for example, that the basic dog types, terriers and hounds and shepherds and such, are being shown to be real genetic realities. They aren't just dogs that were created more than once from different stock. They have much more detail about this in the Nature (journal) article than we'd previously known, if someone has a subscription to Nature can see the new, more detailed, dog family tree. So it doesn't jive perfectly with the American Kennel Club and so on's "taxonomies" of dog, but it does confirm much of it as genetic, not just on job or physical features, the article says. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Origins of man's best friend

The origins of the phrase "man's best friend" is discussed at Old Drum. Some mention should probably be here -- especially since the phrase is used twice including one toward the lead. Americasroof (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Work

Under the heading Work, the list of main working breeds is missing some very key working breeds, including the Belgian Malinois, German Shepherd Dog, Labrador Retriever, and Border Collie. I believe these breeds should be included given their prominent use in herding, military/police work, search and rescue and service work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Workingk9 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they should be included, but there is already a rather large list of working dogs. Maybe the list should be modified somehow? RoseSoul 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseSoul (talk • contribs)

Leonberger has to be on the list if Pir. and Newf. are there. Leo = P + N + St.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.63.59 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An ass is a pack animal.

Dogs are carnivores whose wolf ancestors lived in packs. The statement: "Dogs are pack animals..." should be reworded. The reference to the former use of dogs as pack animals by Apaches and Navajo does not make the dog a pack animal any more than strapping a harness on a house cat and letting it carry a day's ration of water and cat food while one drags it about on a leash makes a house cat a pack animal. --Fartherred (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work! I checked and we have an article pack animal and another called pack hunter. The latter describes the nature of dogs. The term "pack animal" appears to be being misused by this article. Chrisrus (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work again! But could it be better? We could pipe them through a redirect using a different term to the article "pack hunter" if another term had a more accurate effect on the reader. You see, I worry about the effect on the reader of the term "pack hunter" because they do lots more than just hunt in packs. They live in packs pretty much all the time, and that's not clear from this wording, which just says "hunter". Do we have an article about animals that live in packs, as opposed to herds? What about Pack (canine)? We wouldn't want to imply that only Canids can live in packs. We don't know what else Velosoraptors did in packs besides hunt, for example, or whether any other pack hunters can also be said to be pack do-everything-else-ers, if you will. Chrisrus (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

SKYLOS

Skylos = Skilled, Skill = Ability O A'dis Eskileusthi, Doulevo san skilos Skyladiko, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.55.149 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SKYLOS

Skylos = Skilled, Skill = Ability O A'dis Eskileusthi, Doulevo san skilos Skyladiko, Skyvala, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.55.149 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Small edit made - anybody disagree?

I edited the following sentence in the intro to the article from:

"This versatility, more than almost any other known animal, has given them the nickname "Man's best friend" in the western world."

to:

This versatility, more than probably any other known animal, has given them the nickname "Man's best friend" in the western world.

I think the first version implies that there is some animal with greater versatility with regards to being of value to humans, and the article doesn't suggest that.

Trolle3000 [talk] 20:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Whole sentence is pretty unencyclopedic. I changed it a few seconds ago. Vrinan (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this looks better. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

“Biology”

I don't really like the name for the Biology section, because most of the article deals with what I would consider to be aspects of dog biology. The two sections before Biology deal with evolution and taxonomy, which are both subfields of biology. The Biology section basically deals with a bunch of random aspects of dog biology that don't fit into any other section. I don't know what else to call this section, but the current name just seems odd. Any thoughts? Is it just me? --MYCETEAE - talk 07:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting observation, MYCETEAE. For grins, I went and looked at a couple of other like pages, i.e. Cat, Rabbit, Horse, Bird, and none has a Biology section. I like the Cat page breakdown. Maybe this could be reworked similarly? Bob98133 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cwa1974, 18 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "John Katz" to "Jon Katz" (in both the text and the reference) because that's how he spells his name. (see http://www.amazon.com/New-Work-Dogs-Tending-Family/dp/0375508147 for verification). Thanks! Cwa1974 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Defendertech, 28 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Am I the only one that finds it odd that the German Sheppard is not listed as a working dog?

http://www.gsdca.org/index.php http://www.akc.org/breeds/german_shepherd_dog/ http://www.gsscc.ca/

Defendertech (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Defendertech (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 Doing..., with reservations: While I agree that the referenced you've provided indicates that the German Shephard is as valid here as any of the others listed, claiming that all of these dogs are "main" working dogs is unclear and unreferenced; I'm going to remove the "main" part and add it to the list, rephrasing to "some breeds include". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Phylum Error

Do dogs belong to the chordata phylum, because the chordata phylum consists of animal who have a notochord and lose them later on in life or vice versa, I think dogs belong to the Phylum Vertebratae because they have the notochord(Vertebreal Column actuall) throughout their life, I am just a ninth grade student and I am not exactly sure and i would like to know Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.235.38 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC) You are absolutely correct; any animal with a backbone belongs to that phylum. Chrisrus (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC) hey whats up guyx? my name is Shabanna and i am from Mars. Remmeber? we met at the mall? OMG tim was looking hilarious.. lol

Canis lupus dingo

The recent edit adding this classification to the infobox seems to me to be the wrong way round - the subspecies may very well not be distinct, but no domestic dog has ever been classified as canis lupus dingo. --Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

See here: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738, it states "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002)." See here in the comments it classifies Canis lupus dingo as "domestic dog". It is true that, in an Australian context, experts do speak of dingoes vs. domestic dogs, as in discussions of "interbreeding of dingoes and dogs". Elsewhere in their range, such as in Thailand, they are though of as ordinary dogs, living not as wild animals but as feral street dogs anywhere, or as pets. In Java, Boreo, and other places where they are found, they are thought of by everyone as ordinary dogs. So please be advised that another argument other than "no domestic dog has ever been classified as Canis lupus dingo" is false. Dingoes evolved from wolves through "a process of domestication" according to Laurie Corbett in The Dingo in Australia and in Asia", and live as and are thought of as normal dogs all over their range except in Australia, where they are known to be decended from Domestic Dogs brought to Australia by seafarers a few thousand years ago, according to the same book, many thousands of years after the Native Australians arrived. Corbett also identifies the Telomian as C.l.dingo, and no one disputes that the Telomian is a domestic dog. Just because a dog goes feral over part of its range doesn't mean it's not a dog. Chrisrus (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

asain people eat dogs

GA nomination

This article is currently listed as a Good Article nominee, but the nomination was done by an editor who has not contributed much to the article and was not discussed here first; usually a bad sign. I might potentially be interested in doing a review, and my initial take is that the article is within shooting range of GA level but needs fixing in some ways, so I would like to find out whether there are contributors who are able and willing to participate in a possibly extended GA process. (If not, I think it might be best to remove the nom before a review is started.) Looie496 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to get this article to GA status. This article is a the flagship article for the dog WikiProject since it has the most pageviews per month. I'm going to leave a note on the WikiProject Dogs talk page to see if we get more help. Coaster1983 (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's already clear that a review would at least make progress, so I'll go ahead and start one. Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be happy to help out where I can (hence why I didn't pick it up for review myself :) ). Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a review was accidentally started by somebody else -- hopefully I can take it up without breaking anything. I would like to go through the article one part of a time, adding points as I go. My emphasis will be on whether the article is comprehensive, accurate, and understandable. I'll start with the lede:

• Since familiaris and dingo are mentioned right at the top, I think the article ought to contain a brief explanation of why these two subspecies are recognized and why nothing else is a "dog". This shouldn't go into the lede, but it should be in the article somewhere. In the current version, there is no information at all about dingos.

• Dogs were domesticated from gray wolves at least twice. Briefly say when, please.

I changed this sentence to say Dogs were domesticated 15,000 to 40,000 years ago. Coaster1983 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

People keep wild captured animals as pets all the time. The WP:WEIGHT of evidence says that domestication (which uses artifical selection) occurred 15,000 ypb. Discussion of minority views on the first captured wolf pups must be left out of the lead. Abductive (reasoning) 00:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Bering strait/sled dogs. This is weasel-worded and looks like pure speculation. Unless there is some actual archaeological evidence that the people who crossed the strait 15,000 years ago used sled dogs, I don't feel that this belongs in the lede. The mention later in the article is okay, I think.

Through I have a soft spot for sled dogs, I agree that sentence should not be in the lede. I have removed it. Coaster1983 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• landraces. This term is not used anywhere in the article except the lede. Either the sentence needs to be removed or an explanation needs to be added to the article of what the landraces of dogs are.

• As the modern understanding of genetics developed, humans began to intentionally breed dogs for a wide range of specific traits. Humans were methodically breeding dogs long before any understanding of genetics developed.

I think this sentence is very poorly trying to state that as dog breeding practices developed over time, more breeds developed as humans selected dogs for specific traits. I've cut it. Coaster1983 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the lede ought to mention that dogs, and the wolves they evolved from, are highly social species, and that the domestication process involved getting them to transfer their social interactions to humans. It might also be worth mentioning here that dogs are better at understanding human nonverbal communications that any known species of primates.

I may as I go on suggest adding something or other to the lede, but those are the main points I see at present. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review on either side? No comments in nearly a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• My feeling is that the article is far from a GA. Abductive (reasoning) 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  In that case the article needs a full review and a quick fail. Perhaps a note to Looie could get that wrapped up? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that most of the basic points concerning the lead remain unaddressed, I'm not going to spend the time to give this a full review. I was dubious about whether the article should have been nominated in the first place -- it was a drive-by nom without talk page discussion. At this point I am simply going to fail it -- it can always be renominated as soon as somebody thinks that is appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dog

I would like to point out a factual inconsistency in the second introduction paragraph. The "modern understanding of genetics" was developed in the beginning of the 20th century after the work of Gregor Mendel was rediscovered. People had been experimenting with dogs for millenia by that point, and while I do not have the empirical evidence on hand, the examples used are varieties that were developed well before the modern understanding of genetics per se. I think a more approriate way to structure this would be to say "as people began to experiment with breeding". Sorry for the anecdotal nature of my suggestion, but I think it stands to reason that most of our dog breeds were developed earlier than 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.64.0.171 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see no one has picked up on the above well written post, and edited the article. According to Daniel Boorstein (former Librarian of Congress) in his book "The Discoverers", the discoveries of Gregor Mendl were ignored by Western Science, and died with him. In the 1890s, three separate biologists rediscovered Mendlian principles (most notably the principle behind recessive genes) and published papers that made the knowledge part of the scientific canon. So the writer above is correct to assert that knowledge of these principles began to have practical application in the early 20th century. There is no need to discuss the second point made above, that many of the breeds we know today were created by dog breeders in centuries well previous to the 1890s. You can see that I am opinionated, but not versed in the editing conventions of Wikipedia, so will some qualified person please correct the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.115.114 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Is this the part you are talking about?

Over the 15,000 year span the dog had been domesticated, it diverged into only a handful of landraces, groups of similar animals whose morphology and behavior have been shaped by environmental factors and functional roles. As the modern understanding of genetics developed, humans began to intentionally breed dogs for a wide range of specific traits. Through this process, the dog has developed into hundreds of varied breeds, and shows more behavioral and morphological variation than any other land mammal.[12] For example, height measured to the withers ranges from a few inches in the Chihuahua to a few feet in the Irish Wolfhound; color varies from white through grays (usually called "blue'") to black, and browns from light (tan) to dark ("red" or "chocolate") in a wide variation of patterns; coats can be short or long, coarse-haired to wool-like, straight, curly, or smooth.[13] It is common for most breeds to shed this coat.

?

I've cut that sentence as part of the Good Article nomination review. Is everyone okay with this? Should I work the second half of the sentence back into the article?Coaster1983 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel that you have a clear understanding of what exactly the problem was? I tried to address this problem but felt I didn't understand what this contributer was trying to say about this section, or even if it was this section that he was talking about. Please describe your understanding of the problem in this section. Chrisrus (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The anon. contributor, along with the GA reviewer, are referring to sentence that states: As the modern understanding of genetics developed, humans began to intentionally breed dogs for a wide range of specific traits. That sentence saying is that we (humans) did not start intentionally breeding dogs until after we had developed modern genetics theory. This is obviously incorrect, since we have been selectively breeding dogs for thousands of years before we began to understand genetics. What I think the sentence should state is that as humans improved selective breeding practices over time, they developed dogs for a wide range of specific traits. I haven't figured out how to phrase that statement so that it fits in the paragraph yet, so I have temporarily the existing sentence out of the article. Coaster1983 (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right; when put that way, it makes perfect sense. Yes, the developing science of genetics had nothing to do with the actual development of dog breeds: it wasn't done by geneticists, it was done by dog breeders and such. I say, dump it, it's not salvagable. Chrisrus (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Canis lupus dingo

I hope you can help me incorporate this into the article:

According to Laurie Corbet's The Dingo in Australia and in Asia, ordinary street dogs in Thailand and places all over not only southeast Asia but also anywhere the Austronesian {please click, that word may not refer to what you might be thinking} cultural/ethno-linguistic area and places they traded or shipwrecked during the prehistoric diaspora of the Austronesian seafaring people: from the mainlanf to the Indonesian and Phillipine archepelagoes and many other places as far-flung as Taiwan and Madagascar - all over these places researchers have found street dogs and such wandering about the cities and chained up in junkyards and such, which are taxonomically identical to the Australian Dingo, and so they were forced to accept them into the taxon dingo formerly reserved for the Australian native dog, only.

The Australian Dingo's ancestor arrived about one thousand years ago on an Austronesian ship, maybe traders or failed settlers or survivors of a shipwreck or some such, and from there attached themselves to the wholely different Australian native people or simply went feral, eventually becoming more of a wild animal than the domesticated domestic dog that they had been. So it turns out that the native Australians hadn't brought the dogs with them when they came after all: some maybe fourteen thousand years before that they must have been dogless. Experts have recently figured this out, so many still believe that the Aus dingo got there with the first settlers, but that turns out not to have been true. This makes sense because the new understanding is that the dog wasn't domesticated or evolved anywhere until agriculture and larger settlements came about, not during hunter-gatherer times as also used to be thought and still assumed by non-experts.

The reason dingo the taxon hasn't been therefore demoted along with "Canis aquaticus" and the rest - the reason would, as you suggest, indeed be a good addition to the article, but none of my sources address this question, other than MSW3's brief and to my mind lame excuse about getting the correct alignment of taxonomic synonyms and the implication that they'll revisit the decision next time around. So your request that this be explained is a good one but a tough one. Actually, it bugs me, too, so welcome to my world; I'm happy not to be alone in seeing this problem. They seem to be pointing to a sort of taxonomic inertia, tradition, or some such. An expert should review the clause and explain that in the article, but to my mind the answer doesn't seem to be out there in a way that would be citable except the apologetic "alignment of synonyms" bit which isn't going to satisfy a careful reader any more than it does you or me, so I hope we could still get a good article status anyway by explaining this odd moment we inhabit in the intellectual history of thought on dogs in as clear and appropriate way as possible, and it's not our fault if the greatest experts themselves seem ambivilent and reluctant or at a loss to explain themselves.

But anyway, MSW3 says that the domestic dog is a subspecies of C lupus that includes familiaris with the dingo "provisionally separate" and that other old synonyms like "aquaticus" are not valid taxons because they are the result of human breeding and taxonomy doesn't go there anymore. Corbett says C.l.dingo is an ordinary southeast Asian dog that was adopted by Austronesians and spread through areas they settled or contacted, including Australia where the dogs landed somehow went and went feral or wild more recently than originally assumed and still widely believed, and that they were given the taxon dingo back in the days when Spaniels and Mastiffs and such each had their own taxons but that hasn't been changed in the case of dingoes for reasons that are hard to defend and called "provisional". Chrisrus (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest something like this: The subspecies canis lupus dingo includes not only the Australian Dingo but also the New Guinea Singing Dog and several other breeds from various parts of the Austronesian region of southeast Asia. It was once widely believed that dingos arrived in Australia with the earliest humans, as long as 50,000 years ago, but the oldest known traces of them date back only about 4000 years, suggesting that they were brought over the water only relatively recently, and calling into question the rationale for classifying them as a separate subspecies. The most widely accepted authority (MSW3) continues to classify canis lupus dingo as "provisionally separate" from canis lupus familiaris, but some biologists have argued that this distinction should be dropped (cite an authoritative source). By the way, canis aquaticus currently redirects to poodle, which seems puzzling in light of what is written above. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good, but Corbett says the Aus Dingo would have arrived there only about one thousand years ago. Thank you for your help and interest in this matter. Also, it's not really the length of time per se that calls it into question, but the fact that ordinary Thai dogs and such, when you measure them and look at their genetics, or actually just glance at them, are clearly the same animal as the Australian dingo, even if they live a very different lifestyle.

Also, poodle seems about right as a place to send searchers for "Canis aquaticus", athough maybe Water dogs in general, the entire "poodle family" of breeds might be better, an expert on him would know what he meant by each, but many are obvious. This brings up the criticism above that the article doesn't go through and explain that part of the history of the taxonomy of dogs. When Linnaeus came up with terms like Canis articus and Canis aquatus and Canis leonis or whatever they were, I can't remember but they are listed at MSW3's C.l.familiaris's synonym section, he was just going by the morphological evidence that there were, infact, all these sub-types of dogs that we would now consider breeds or breed groups or some such. Each one should probably be linked up to an article if possible to what he was referring to when he coined those terms, but to give you an idea they meant spaniels and bulldogs and the spitz dogs and grayhounds and such, even specific breeds, like I think there was one "leonis" that referred to specifically the Peekinese. There is nothing wrong per se with what he and the other two, Gmelin and Smith were doing, but as soon as it was established beyond any reasonable doubt that dogs are domesticated wolves, not jackels or dholes as some had been guessing, they changed the designation to the present model where it's a subspecies, C.l.dingo, but that put an end to the practice of assigning taxa to the basic types of dogs, and demoted Linnaeus's dog subspecies off into the recognized synonyms, along with those who followed in his footsteps and maybe improved on what Linnaeus was doing. Those are the taxonomic synonyms that were proposed by Gmelin, 1792 and C. E. H. Smith, 1839, it was all if not true, still good advance in dog science. Linnaeus and Gmelin and Smith were refering to real animals, but it's just that when you make dog a subspecies you can't have dog subspecies anymore because that's as low as taxonomy (somewhat arbitarily) goes. The only one that is there because it was just plain wrong is the Canis hagenbeki, which just refers to a big hoax or mistake was by (Krumbiegel, 1950), an embarrassing story found at Andean wolf, which never existed. The others are synonyms for a wholely different reason and the article should just mention the story behind the fact that there used to be a series of at least three attempts to set forward and improve the taxonomy of the dog below the level of just "domestic dog", but that C.l.dingo is the only one left from that era that still remains.

It occurs to me that the article maybe should explain that familiaris originally was intended by Linnaeus to refer to the undifferntiated "mutt" found all over Europe, a more feral animal, and domesticus used to refer to the common european farm dog, which was different. "Familiaris" meant "ordinary" and "domestcus" meant "more domesticated". Understanding where those two taxa originally came from, what they originally referred to, that might be a good thing for the article. I'm not sure how to cite that fact, though, but it might be a good idea to try.

If you want to see the official synonyms for familiaris, you can find them here, or just go to the familiaris page of MSW3.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs)

Interesting. Can I ask, though, that we rigorously exclude any information that isn't absolutely essential to understanding the point? Otherwise I am going to be overwhelmed. Looie496 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I only was discussing this in my long-winded way in order to describe what it would take to answer critiques in the above section. We could just mention a summary of these things, or not bother trying to address those critiques, or deal with them in some other way. Chrisrus (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the dog chewing on the pig foot

the dog is chewing on the pig foot not eating it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.18 (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I changed it to "gnawing". Is that better? Chrisrus (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

kiss my anthea

Edit request from Rcooper102, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The senses section of the article on dogs is somewhat lacking. As I have had significant experience researching the vision of Canines I pulled out my resource material and expanded on the section on sight. I also would like to expand on the other sections such as those dealing with hearing and smell, however, I do not feel I have performed adequate research to be able to meaningfully edit these sections. Below I have included the sight section of the page including additions and their respective references.:

Sight

File:Greyhound portrait.jpg

A Greyhound, one of many breeds of sighthound.

Like most mammals, dogs are dichromats and have color vision equivalent to red-green color blindness in humans (deuteranopia). Dogs are less sensitive to differences in grey shades than humans and also can detect brightness at about half the accuracy of humans.

The dog's visual system has evolved to aid proficient hunting. While a dog's visual acuity is poor (that of a poodle's has been estimated to translate to a Snellen rating of 20/75), their visual discrimination for moving objects is very high; dogs have been shown to be able to discriminate between humans (e.g. identifying their owner) range of between 800-900 m, however this range decrease to 500-600m if the object is stationary. Dogs have a temporal resolution of between 60-70 hz which explains why many dogs struggle to watch television as modern screens are optimized for humans at 50-60 hz. Dogs can detect detect a change in movement that exists in a single diopter of space within their eye. (humans require a change of between 10-20 diopters. Comparatively dogs can detect movement that is up to 20 times subtler than a human.

As crepuscular hunters, dogs often rely on their vision in low light situations: they have very large pupils, a high density of rods in the fovea, an increased flicker rate, and a tapetum lucidum. The tapetum is a reflective surface behind the retina that reflects light back to give the photoreceptors a second chance to catch the photons. There is also a relationship between body size and overall diameter of the eye. A range of 9.5 and 11.6 mm can be found between various breeds of dogs. This 20% variance can be substantial and is associated as an adaptation toward superior night vision.

The eyes of different breeds of dogs have different shapes, dimensions, and retina configurations. Many long-nosed breeds have a "visual streak" – a wide foveal region that runs across the width of the retina and gives them a very wide field of excellent vision. Some long-muzzled breeds, particularly the sighthounds, have a field of vision up to 270° (compared to 180° for humans). Short-nosed breeds, on the other hand, have an "area centralis": a central patch with up to three times the density of nerve endings as the visual streak, giving them detailed sight much more like a human's. Some broad-headed breeds with short noses have a field of vision similar to that of humans. Most breeds have good vision, but some show a genetic predisposition for myopia – such as Rottweilers, where one out of every two has been found to be myopic. Dogs also have a greater divergence of the eye axis than humans allowing them to rotate their pupils farther in any direction. The divergence of the eye axis of dogs ranges from 12-25° depending on the breed.

Experimentation has proven that dogs can distinguish between complex visual images such as that of a cube or a prism. Dogs also show attraction to static visual images such as the silhouette of a dog on a screen, their own reflections, or videos of dogs, however, their interest declines sharply once they are unable to make social contact with the image.

Rcooper102 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the great info! Stickee (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As pets

The third sentence of "As pets" is patently inaccurate, as anyone knows who remembers the fifties, when doghouses were largely unused, or Asta, who lived in Nick and Nora's apartment. Would some researcher more energetic than I please rewrite accordingly?C. Cerf (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is supported by a cited source. See WP:V and WP:DUE. Also, the wikilinks above should go to Skippy (dog) and to Nick and Nora Charles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, but Cerf's point is well taken: it was a bit overstated to state simply "dogs used to live outside in doghouses" as if the practice were totally extinct now and had been completely universal in those days. So I added a qualifying statement to the effect of "more often than they are today". I hope the present wording is acceptable to wikists Cerf and Mitchell, but I'm not saying the section doesn't need more work. Please look it over and be bold! Thank you both for your contributions to the article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Apex predators

The article states that "wild dogs... are apex predators". It then immediately goes on to list all the animals that prey on wild dogs: wolves, hyaenas, big cats, crocodiles etc. How can animals with multiple predators be considered in any way an apex predator? In what ecosystems are wild dogs apex predators?111.220.201.171 (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I tried to fix it. Have a look and let us know what you think or feel free to edit it yourself. Chrisrus (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cites of the book

I'm adding this talk page section after seeing this edit, which changed an assertion in the lead section which previously read, "... these attributes have earned dogs a unique relationship with humans, despite being potentially dangerous apex predators." to read instead as "... these attributes have given dogs a relationship with humans that has enabled them to become one of the most successful species on the planet today." The source cited to support both versions of that sentence is the book Ádám Miklósi (2007), Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199295852. Page 1 of that book says, "This book is about the biological study of dog behavior, based on the programme summarized so clearly by Tinnbergen in 1963. ...". I don't know whether or not the cited source supports either or both versions of that assertion, because the citation doesn't give a page numbered reference in this 274 page book. (I am a bit bemused by seeing "programme summarized" there -- an interesting juxtaposition of British and American spellings)

I see that the changed-to version of the quoted snippet echoes a point made in the article body -- citing this book in support without specifying a page. Perhaps the Ref in the lead is not needed.

Looking at the cite, I counted 16 collected Refs -- 16 instances where this source is cited in support of an assertion without providing a page numbere. Most or all of these should provide page numbers or ranges.

At one point, this source is cited in support of the assertion, "... the gray wolf, is the common ancestor for all breeds of domestic dogs." This google books search turns up a snippet on page 266 which says, "DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf." The complete text for that page is not previewable, and I don't know whether or not this is a contradiction, but a page number where the book supports the assertion should be identified.

Another cite repeats the "successful species" assertion spoken of earlier, without specifying a page number. I don't know whether or not the source does support that -- I do see that page 238 says that the ancestor of the dog was a very successful species.

I've added page number info to some previously unnumbered cites of this source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)