Talk:Dog/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Use of "K9"/"K-9" origin in Etymology?

"K9"/"K-9" has a disambiguation page and this Dog page is one of the listed pages.

Would it be proper to include on the Dog page a history/origin for the use of "K9"/"K-9" as a substitution for the word "canine"?

I was looking for that information and was a little surprised when I did not find it here.

Housiemousie (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Found this, HERE: "A search of Google Books, for example, found an 1876 issue of Hallberger’s Illustrated Magazine that refers to “the various ways of rendering ‘Canine Castle,’ such as ‘K-nine Castle,’ and, better still, ‘K.9 Castle.’ ”

(Canine Castle was a kennel in London owned by Bill George, a celebrated 19th-century breeder of bulldogs.)"

Housiemousie (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dogs as food

The statements about people eating dogs seem random, poorly sourced, and perhaps racist. One of the "countries" mentioned is "South Vietnam," which hasn't been a country since 1975. The source given is an article that mentions Korea (not anywhere near Vietnam) and Hanoi (Capital of Vietnam, in the north and never part of South Vietnam) and says nothing about the former nation of South Vietnam or any area in it. The article might as well mention that dog meat is something eaten by Christians, which is how it might be classified by a Vietnamese Buddhist. There's no mention of Africa, the Americas (US in the early 20th century and as a 19th century "cure" for TB, Mexico, etc.) or Europe, where dog meat is still eaten in some countries. Either there should be no specific country mentioned, and perhaps a link to the general article on dog meat, or it should be removed all together. A random mention that Asians eat dogs, given completely out of context, is misleading and racist since the article is largely geared to dog aficionados, not culinary aficionados.

Hagrinas (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the sources for any statement regarding dogs as food, the only ones that are really unusable were Animal People News and a blog called Korean Living (both fail our reliable sourcing standards), as well as an essay on some university site that even the Internet Archive has lost. The rest of the sources are professional journalistic or academic sources.

That said, there are potential issues of original research and WP:UNDUE weight, because the intro should only summarize the body instead of making its own points, and the "as food" section should really only summarize the article Dog meat. That would mean that this article would still highlight Asia (particularly China) in the intro, because the section on China alone (not including Hong Kong or Taiwan) as large as any section on whole continents (with HK and Taiwan, it overshadows any other section). Many of the other countries listed in the Asian section are two, three, or four times as long and detailed as any other country's section.

While it would be racist to pretend that all Asians and only Asians eat every dog they can, it'd be denying many Asians' cultures to pretend it's not more tolerated here than in other parts of the world. I'm living in China now, and while I have never raised the issue, other people have brought it up. Anecdotal, but the impression I've been given is that it's not really any different than westerners eating rabbit or turtle: many city folk will go "no, that's a pet," while some will readily admit "oh yeah, my country relatives love the stuff" and can even help you find restaurants that serve it.

This article is not geared to aficionados of any sort: all articles merely summarize reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yuk

"Another study of dogs' roles in families showed many dogs have set tasks or routines undertaken as family members, the most common of which was helping with the washing-up by licking the plates in the dishwasher ..."

This sounds absolutely disgusting. Surely this practice is not "common"?? 109.145.19.117 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Good pickup. This appears to have come from a website's conjecture and not the cited article. The editor who placed it on Wikipedia did not bother to check the facts. The article gave only one example of a dog called Coco and it was not a common practice as claimed by the website, nor did bringing in the paper even appear in the article. Page 548 of the cited article (DOI: 10.1080/14649360802217790) talks about a family's interaction with Coco. Text now removed as it is not encyclopedic. The editor that provided this text 6 years ago has received an advice that this action does not comply with WP:CITE. William Harris • talk • 21:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

wolves are like dogs in fact they are ancestors. wolves scientific names are canis lupus Trinityrulezlikenoother (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Trinity

 Not done Please state your request in a "change X to Y because Z" format. We already have a section comparing them with wolves, so it's not really obvious what else you want. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Body temperature

Could someone more experienced add in a section about the dog's body temperature, like the physiology section of the cat article. Karel Adriaan (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

False information in this article?

In the taxonomy section, it says "The dog was classified as Canis familiaris,[23] which means "Dog-family"[24] or the family dog."

In context, this means that Linneaus meant "family dog" when he classified it as Canis familiaris.

There is reason to believe that this is false.

Points of fact:

1. Linneaus also classified the common treecreeper as familiaris.

2. Citation says that the Latin adjective "familaris" means not just "family" but also "familiar" (i.e.: "common" or "ordinary").

Reasoning:

Lineaus obviously meant "familiar, common treecreeper" when he named the common treecreeper familiaris?, not "family tree-creeper", so he ?meant "familiar dog", not "family dog".

This article should be edited in light of this.

I pause for comment before proceeding. Chrisrus (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us be clear about what the Oxford English Dictionary actually states - "Origin: Middle English (in the sense 'intimate', 'on a family footing'): from Old French familier, from Latin familiaris, from familia 'household servants, family', from famulus 'servant'." It looks fairly clear to me, Chris, a member of the family - nothing ordinary or common about the dog. I don't care much for treecreepers. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Which OED entry says that? Chrisrus (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The citation that is supplied, if one were to follow it through to the bottom of the page and the derivation of the word from the Latin. Additionally, if Linneaus wanted something to be called "common", he would have named it communis eg Panorpa communis. If he wanted something to be "ordinary", he would have named it ordinarius eg Conus ammiralis var. ordinarius. (If we are going to do some research Chris, then we need to research all of the possibilities.) But we are not here to debate what was going on in someone's head 250 years ago, we are looking at the meaning of the Latin word familiaris - I see the word family jump out straight away, as did the Latins. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked at several definitions yesterday and some of them also list familiaris as meaning "familiar" or "common" [1][2][3]. I too always thought it meant "common", but this might be a case of "it depends which book you read". DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Chrissy (who looked at other possibilities). Given that the Oxford Dictionary - maintained by Oxford University through its Oxford University Press - is the overseer of the English language, I suggest we stay with its derivation for the Latin word familiaris. William Harris • talk • 09:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Use Latin dictionaries for this, not English dictionaries. We want to know what it meant in Latin.

Chrissy is right; Latin dictionaries confirm that "familiaris" meant both "family" and "familiar".

Ask how to say "familiar" is said in Latin, and learn the answer is "familiaris". For example https://en.glosbe.com/en/la/familiar

Here is the conversation that led to this one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Question:_What_does_.22familiaris.22_mean.3F Chrisrus (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If you both believe that is the correct course of action, then feel free to amend the sentence to read "familiaris" means both "family" and "familiar". Right now regarding Canis familiaris, my undivided attention is on the approach of 1pm, Thursday 2 June 2016, US Eastern Standard Time. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

~jewish people dont HAVE to feed them before they eat its just preferable

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not sure how reliable the currently cited source is, but https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/animals.html says "In the Talmud, the rabbis further dictated that a person may not purchase an animal unless he has made provisions to feed it, and a person must feed his animals before he feeds himself. " Cannolis (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

In the Taxonomy section there is the following sentence: In 1978, a review aimed at reducing the number of recognized Canis species proposed that "Canis dingo is now generally regarded as a distinctive feral domestic dog.

More recent research continues to support Canis dingo as a separate species (e.g. Crowther et al 2014 An updated description of the Australian dingo (Canis dingo Meyer, 1793) Journal of Zoology 293(3): 192-203. Furthermore, research by Smith and Litchfield 2009 (A review of the relationship between indigenous Australians, dingoes (Canis dingo) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), Anthrozoös 22(2):111-129) suggests the dingo was never fully domesticated by indigenous Australians and therefore not considered a feral domestic dog.

I would like to propose that the above sentence be removed as it is ambiguous and inaccurate. Lvaneeden (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: That was the history that led to the Dingo and the Dog being classified as Canis lupus. It is not inaccurate because it is a direct quote from the cited reference. It is not ambiguous because based on your proposal above you knew exactly what it means. It is taxonomic history and therefore should not be removed. Wikipedia goes by the taxonomic classification contained within Mammal Species of the World edition 3 - rightly or wrongly - and not by the opinions of dissenting academics. Fan 2016 has recently conducted, for the first time, a whole-genome sequencing of wolves, dogs and dingoes and their finding was that they are all gray wolves and made the point of rebutting Crowther on genomic grounds. See further Evolution of the wolf#Domestic dog. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

May I edit the following article "dog" as written above-hand? Wikipediacontributer334 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Terminology - recent revert

Regarding the recent revert of my edit under the section on Terminology:

• You need to bear in mind that this is the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia and that this article is rated as B-Class on the quality scale and of Top importance.
• WP:BLUE is not a policy; it is an essay...
• ...which states that there is no need to cite common knowledge. If this section was common knowledge then there would be no reason for it to be included in the article. I put it to you that "An adult female capable of reproduction is a brood bitch, or brood mother" is not common knowledge, and that "A group of any three or more adults is a pack" requires citation - who says so?
• This section will need to meet WP:CITE else it will shortly be relocated to the "Dog breeding" article that is rated at Start class on its quality scale.

Regards,  William Harris |talk  10:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(re-edited for clarity and to remove unintended hostile language) I am well aware of the class of this article; I do not believe that is pertinent here, however, so will not address it further. WP:BLUE is not a policy, but it is a WP guideline. It clearly indicates there is no need to cite self-evident facts. In the context of this article, that means there is no need for a citation (which would be of a dictionary) for something so obvious as a term's definition. Furthermore, WP:CITE and related guidelines indicate authors should be cautious not to over-cite to the point it detracts from an article. (The counterargument--why self-evident facts need stated at all--is the one that's truly at issue here, I think.)

As for whether this section is needed...I argue that it is, as it is informative to a non-native speaker or to anyone who is interested in gender-specific (no, not breeding-specific) terminology. These terms are useful for non-native English speakers, which is within the scope of the English WP. I am not easily dissuaded that the Dog article is better off without key, common, Dog terminology. Furthermore, multiple similar articles have set precedence for a Terminology section. In short, I disagree with your stance and your desire to move this section, particularly since over half of it includes terms not limited to Dog Breeding, and because it does not clearly violate WP policy.

I apologize for the earlier rendering of my above comments. They were unintentionally hostile (allow me the conceit of blaming the flu virus I am currently battling!) I have rewritten them so they are in line with my intentions. Meanwhile...I believe WP policy agrees with me, as does precedence from similar articles. You clearly see WP policy differently. If a majority of authors agree with your change then I'll gladly concede, but I won't support unilateral changes when WP policy may not support them. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:English applies to the WP:Title only and not its content - we are discussing content. However, your proposal is agreeable. If no other editor provides an opinion within three days then I will revert my revert. Regards,  William Harris |talk  19:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the heading "Terminology". This is consistent with many other animal articles. It also allows for the insertion of other more general terminology which may be unrelated to breeding. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the primary issue, then, is whether the terms that ARE specific to breeding ("stud", "brood bitch", etc.) actually belong in a general Dog article? I'll concede they may be overly specialized for such an article. But then again, general domesticated mammal terminology does overlap heavily with breeding status (e.g. stallion vs gelding vs mare, or bull vs steer vs cow). Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it suggested that articles should be written so that an educated 14-yr-old can understand them. With this in mind, I suggest that all the terms remain. If there are some specific to breeding, this could be indicated as "XXXX is a term used in dog breeding to mean...". If the list becomes to large, we could create something like Glossary of equestrian terms. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chrissy, over the years I have learned to trust your judgement (on most things, anyway....). I shall make the change. Regards,  William Harris |talk  20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not watch this page, and have just noticed that my revert was already reverted by another editor despite me bringing this matter to the Talk page for discussion. I am a little disappointed. This is one of the reasons why the article "Dog", despite the dog being so dear to the English-speaking world, will never again reach the Good Article status that it once held. Regards,  William Harris |talk  20:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That was me, actually (if you're talking about this specific edit; I have not checked if any of your other edits were reverted). I reverted since policy is to leave a page in its unaltered state till consensus is reached on Talk. Now that we have reached consensus in favor of the original, I don't think further action is needed, but do urge User:William Harris to continue editing this page as it clearly would benefit! Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521193821/http://www.encyclocenter.com/Domestic-Pet-134.html to http://www.encyclocenter.com/Domestic-Pet-134.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202234138/http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Dog_Development to http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Dog_Development#Development_Overview
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pawsoflife.org/pdf/Library%20articles/Bradshaw%202009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005192843/http://www.russianspaceweb.com:80/sputnik2.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sputnik2.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

I would like to add more credited information to the site "Dogs." It shall be factual and precise, and I will add some additional pictures. Puppylulu (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Spiked collar

My revision that explained the reason for a spiked collar in the section "Competitors" (really, animals with the potential of preying on dogs, was reverted for lack of a source.

Here it was:

"The spiked collar common on dogs is no mere ornament: it originated as a protection of the vulnerable neck of a dog from wolves, but also protects dogs from attacks by other dogs."

(Most animals, including dogs, preying on quadrupeds attack the neck which contains the carotid artery, the jugular vein, the spinal cord, and the upper windpipe with the intent of causing suffocation, paralysis, or quickly-fatal bleeding.

I found a source:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-dog-collars-have-spikes.

I am replacing the material and adding the source.

The spiked collar common on dogs is no mere ornament: it originated as a protection of the vulnerable neck of a dog from wolves, but also protects dogs from attacks by other dogs.Pbrower2a (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References

False Information II

How is the dog the most abundant carnivore? There are many, many more abundant carnivores. This is a ridiculous statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.246.150 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: Thanks for doing this. My revert of your deletion was based on the fact that deleting another editor's post (whether or not they know how to thread) is against WP:TPO guidelines - you could be sanctioned for it. The best way to move forward here is address the concern using RS. So, we should be looking at RS telling us about the abundance of carnivores. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about Islamophobic content posing as facts

Hello. Could I have some input on the section about religious views which seems to link to a known Islamophobic source, gatestoneinstitute, specifically the article, "Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe". Wiki article on this source itself states: "The Gatestone Institute has been accused of being islamophobic, and of promoting falsehoods and paranoia" The content appears to list a couple of isolated and unverified events around Europe to falsely portray Muslims as dog hates. It should be pointed out that Dogs are not banned in any Muslim country. They might be considered unclean and banned from mosques, but the current description does not reflect this. In any case, all of these are political inspired contemporary views. If you want the narrative from the Quran on the subject, there really isnt much besides the story about Muhammads life being saved by a dog. --Xinjao (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Not an appropriate source to discuss Muslim views on dogs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate statement about the sense of magnetic field

I can't log in to edit, but someone please fix the duplicate mention of the Earth's magnetic field among dog senses: "The dog's senses include vision, hearing, sense of smell, sense of taste, touch and sensitivity to the earth's magnetic field. Another study suggested that dogs can see the earth's magnetic field.[43][44]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.169.84 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

These are not the same thing. One is a sense in the form of feel, another is actually seeing through the eye. Perhaps next time you might like to read the cited sources before commenting. William Harris • (talk) • 11:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Dogs' eyes

I just wanted to add some fairly technical information about dogs' eyes since they are quite unusual (featuring a strange cup-shaped macula as well as a tapetum lucidum) and was wondering about the best place to put that in the article as I was loathe to start a whole new section for it. I also have a quite extraordinary retinal image to go with the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinum opus (talk • contribs) 11:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Dog anatomy should be appropriate. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Diet

The diet section suggests dogs should avoid an all-meat diet since it is low in iron and calcium. This is backwards; it is the meatless diet that suffers this shortcoming. This was changed some time ago and was probably vandalism 07:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That is what the cited source says. If you have a reference that conflicts with this, please feel free to add it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam as a consumer of dogs

Hello, it is said in the article that 'South Vietnam' is a consumer of dog meat. This is wrong since dog eating is a tradition of NORTHERN VIetnam. Obviously there are dog meat restaurants in the south, yet they are almost always associated with Northern tradition. As seen in the cited BBC article, the writer was in Hanoi, in the north of the country. Please make changes regarding this matter. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.185.15.80 (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

South Vietnam amended to Vietnam, thanks. If "Obviously there are dog meat restaurants in the south", then I would suggest the article is correct. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/dog.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sputnik2.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125062225/http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/9/dogs.catseatenAsia903.html to http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/9/dogs.catseatenAsia903.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The reproduction section has an error.

The Reproduction section on the Dog page has an error in it. It states, "2–5 days after conception fertilization occurs." This did not make sense to me seeing as conception and fertilization are synonymous, so I looked into the source provided. What the page actually says, is that fertilization occurs 2-5 days after ovulation. Also, in the same sentence, the Wikipedia article mentions that implantation occurs 14-16 days after fertilization, when it is really happening 14-16 days after ovulation, as the numbers shown in the source are relative to a 0 of ovulation, not the previous stage. Therefore, I am requesting that that section be changed to showcase what is actually happening.

Fixthedogpageplz (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. I attempted to fix it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603145809/http://www.cpvh.com/2011/07/27/gestation-in-dogs/ to http://www.cpvh.com/2011/07/27/gestation-in-dogs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210165320/http://www.almostheaven-golden-retriever-rescue.org/old-drum.html to http://www.almostheaven-golden-retriever-rescue.org/old-drum.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221105943/http://psychdog.org/attclinicians.html to http://www.psychdog.org/attclinicians.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110322113606/http://www.hlthss.gov.nt.ca/english/services/health_promotion/pdf/injury_prevention_bulletin.pdf to http://www.hlthss.gov.nt.ca/english/services/health_promotion/pdf/injury_prevention_bulletin.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Entymology and Terminology - Duplicative

I've noticed that the Terminology section seems largely duplicative of Entymology's final paragraph. I haven't kept close watch on this article but think that's a recent development. Do we still need Terminology? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I decided to delete Terminology. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead Section

Lead section has excessive details and links for the opening paragraphs. It also makes it difficult to follow (13 ref in the first paragraph alone). However, it is fairly short for the length of the article and could be expanded. Cats lead is a good reference, no irony intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russty11 (talk • contribs)

User:Russty11, it is good practice to WP:SIGNATURE and date-stamp your posts on a talk page. There are 13 refs in the lead because the Dog page is one of the most contentious on Wikipedia and even fully cited material gets deleted from time to time, which is why the article is semi-protected. Regarding excessive links, WP:LEADLINK applies and in my view these should all be removed - the lead should be an overview of what can be found in the text, and that text should contain those links. Any ideas on improvement or flow would be well-received. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Russty11: What specific changes (changing X -> Y) would you like to see made? If you are autoconfirmed already, then be bold, and make the change (but don't be reckless). If you are not autoconfirmed, then submit an edit request and I, or another editor will be happy to take a look at it and/or make the change. Morphdog^fire 02:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry that a few of my earlier edits to the opening paragraph were a bit reckless. My newest edit was just to clarify that dogs are "the most abundant and widely distributed terrestrial carnivore" as many aquatic carnivores are much more abundant than any terrestrial carnivore. Achat1234 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding a subtopic under 'Health'

Hi there, I just wanted to run by the idea of adding an additional subtopic under the title 'Health' regarding nutrients that help to promote healthy skin.(Paigeannison (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC))

"The dog is the first species to be domesticated" should be "The dog was the..."

"The dog is the first species to be domesticated and has been selectively bred over millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes." This is the third sentence of the page. I feel it should be "The dog was the first species to be domesticated [...]" as this tense is more correct when describing what a first of something was. 27.131.42.126 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (public organization IP).

 Done GMG^talk 10:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Not only the dog WAS the first domesticate, but it still IS the first domesticate, unless you can provide the name of its replacement. William Harris • (talk) • 07:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@William Harris. Why are you using the verb "domesticate" as a noun? The proper noun is "domestication". If something "was the first to be domesticated", then it still is and will always be, unless someone changes history, which isn't implied in any way. We are not talking about the "first lady" here or some annual ranking. The difference between "is" and "was" is that "is" reads like from a newspaper article discussing a novel invention. "Was" should be used as the domestication of canis lupus occurred a very long time ago. 104.234.248.55 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A domesticate is an organism that has gone through the process of domestication. Plantdrew (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User 104.234.248.55 - look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. William Harris • (talk) • 11:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are we arguing over this? The passage says "was...domesticated" which is grammatically correct. I'm not sure it should use "is a domesticate" at all, which is comparatively archaic wording and fairly obvious how it would be easily confusing for readers, even if it's technically correct. GMG^talk 12:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no argument. An editor asked why I used the correct term "domesticate" and told us that in his view its usage is incorrect, and I replied. At no stage did I propose the use of the term domesticate, that is your assumption. The word is often used in the domestication literature. William Harris • (talk) • 20:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

207.28.100.93 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

its a dog

 Not done No request was made. GMG^talk 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Specific point and general request

Diet - the section on diet says that all-meat diet is not recommended because it's low in iron. Animal flesh being low in iron is ludicrous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron#Food_sources This should be looked into and changed. The reference is to a wayback machine storage of a site that is not a scientific reference in the first place, very shady stuff. It's a heavily used reference in the article, and I think that looks odd given the fact that it appears to be a special interest site rather than a scientific one. 98.184.198.24 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

Dogs Are The Best Pet 71.115.226.62 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No, that'd be cats. In all seriousness, though: Please state your request in a "please change X to Y because Z" format or "please add X in Y location because Z" format, giving a reason that is based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources or on site policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Dog charities

I wondered why my reference to Bravehound and Hounds for Heroes was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigojones666 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Indigojones666. Dennis may be able to explain in more detail what they were thinking in particular, but I'd probably agree with the revert overall. The scope of this article is basically all dogs everywhere for all of recorded history. There are surely many thousands of organizations in the world somehow related to dogs, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to mention this one in particular, as opposed to many others, many of which I'm sure have a longer history and may be of overall greater historical importance. GMG^talk 16:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course that makes sense my apologies; Bravehound was an orphan so I was trying to find some parents! Regards Garry

Indigojones666, I see List of charities in China and List of water-related charities both exist. It may be appropriate to have a List of charities in the United Kingdom, or maybe a List of dog-related charities assuming there's enough related subjects that already have their own Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 16:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I will take a look. On another note: When I first put forward Bravehound  Legacypac thought it was too advertorial - which it was. However, I have re-added this reference (see below) in the Bravehound History section as it links to another Wiki article where Glen art are already mentioned…

“and a 2016 memorial concert celebrating the life of Sir Nicholas Winton in support of Syrian refugees”.

http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/concert-celebrating-sir-nicholas-winton-to-raise-funds-for-syrian-refugees/ http://www.bcu.ac.uk/conservatoire/about-us/news/sir-nicholas-winton

Is that ok?

Well, Indigojones666, I'd say that first and foremost the goal of Articles for Creation is to weed out articles that are likely to be deleted, and this doesn't seem terribly like it might obviously need to be. I'd say you do get off in the weeds some talking about MacDonald and Art in a way that isn't really on topic as far as the charity directly, and I would recommend removing those bits. I would also seriously consider rewriting the section to take out the names of the recipients of the services. If people are themselves relatively unknown we generally want to avoid mentioning them by name in articles for privacy reasons. So, it's possible, maybe likely that they might not necessarily want everyone for all time to know that they struggled enough with PTSD or other mental health issues enough to qualify for services. Other than that, I'd just say keep on writing, and revisit it in six months or a year and see if you've learned anything in that time that can better improve the article. GMG^talk 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good points thanks very much Garry

Dogs in Australia

The study by UWA and ANU suggests people formed close bonds with dingoes soon after the dogs' arrival on the mainland roughly 4000 years ago, with the dogs enabling women to contribute more hunted food. 2015 study. I think this information should be added to the article. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you would be better directed to the Dingo article. Secondly and unfortunately for the study you provided, dingoes appear to have walked to Australia over 8,000 years ago, when it was connected to New Guinea at a time when sea levels were lower. DOI: 10.1007/s10709-016-9924-z Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The cited article (doi:10.1007/s10709-016-9924-z "New insights on the history of canids in Oceania based on mitochondrial and nuclear data") suggests multiple immigrations of dingo varieties to Australia from New Guinea, but it does not say 8,000 years ago. It says they may have arrived by land, but perhaps by sea. Goustien (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To quote directly from the article: "The two dingo lineages are estimated to have split 8300 years BP and the mean tip-calibrated estimate for the divergence between the SE dingo lineage and the NGSD is 7800 years BP. These dating estimates suggest that it is plausible dingoes and the NGSD diverged in Sahul before dingoes ultimately spread into Australia through the land bridge." Additionally, "Australia and Papua New Guinea were once joined by a land bridge forming the continent of Sahul. Approximately 6500–8500 years BP." Therefore, the time-frame is between 8,300 YBP to 7,800 YBP for the northwestern dingoes - else they would have appeared in the NGSD split, which they did not. That is well before 4,000 YBP, and we know that lupus can disperse over 1,000k in one year. William Harris • (talk) • 04:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

The page was vandalized to redirect to Gray wolf. This should be reverted. C0dd (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK _Discuss 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Error in scientific name authority

In the infobox the scientific name synonym is presently given as Canis familiaris (Linnaeus, 1758). This is incorrect, the parentheses around the authority imply that the species has been reclassified (moved to a different genus) since Linnaeus described it, which is not the case. The correct citation is Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758. If no-one has any objection I will change it to the correct form after a few days for comment. Tony 1212 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The brackets need to stay; that is the convention here on Wikipedia. Please refer

By the way the current trinomial name as presented (Canis lupus familiaris) should also have the authority cited as Linnaeus, 1758 - the author of the name "familiaris" is the same whether treated as a species or subspecies (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, principle of coordination). Tony 1212 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your second point based on the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy. Canis familiaris is the dog's name given in nomenclature in 1758 and cannot be changed, apart from a ruling by the ICZN. However, Wozencraft is the authority who in 2005 classified the dog's taxonomy (i.e. its "description" or "placed with") as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of a wolf - a taxonomic classification that remains disputed. Linnaeus had no say in that. William Harris • (talk) • 08:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"The brackets need to stay; that is the convention here on Wikipedia" Absolutely not; the brackets need to go. This is a nomenclatural convention, not a Wikipedia convention. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Organisms#Sources_and_authorities (second to last paragraph of that section). The authority used in the taxobox is the nomenclatural authority that originally described the taxon, not the taxonomic authority responsible for the latest treatment. When a species is not placed in its original genus, the nomenclatural authority is bracketed. When the species is included in the original genus, brackets are omitted. Wikipedia does get the brackets wrong sometimes because editors don't realize their significance, or because they are following sources that present data in a way where the bracket convention need not be followed (Mammal Species of the World is one such source). But there is no reason for Wikipedia to intentionally override this convention. Plantdrew (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree and that partial sentence should have been removed when I posted the comment further below. I went looking for where I thought a reference was but could not find one, then got side-tracked. That is why it is a partial sentence referring to nothing. William Harris • (talk) • 08:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the incorrect brackets around author names also occur in the section "Taxonomy" i.e. "(Linnaeus, 1758)" (several instances) and "(Meyer, 1793)" (same). Brackets should be removed in all cases. In fact the in the third sentence, currently "He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris (Linnaeus, 1758) and on the next page as a separate species he classified the wolf as Canis lupus (Linnaeus, 1758).", the authorities are unnecessary: the concept of quoting authors in this manner was not standardised in Linnaeus' time or in his work (at least for new names) and Linnaeus would not have cited his own name in any case; this would be a convention applied by later authors. (Note: you can see the original page at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25033830 if you need to confirm this...) I would suggest this sentence simply read: "He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris and on the next page as a separate species he classified the wolf as Canis lupus." Can someone fix this/these please? I would do so myself but don't think I have the privileges. Tony 1212 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Actioned, apart from the Wozencraft MSW3 section where this was his quote. William Harris • (talk) • 12:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks William Harris... just noticed there are still some brackets to remove in the "Taxonomy" section: in paragraph 4: "Given that Canis familiaris (Linnaeus, 1758) has date priority over Canis dingo (Meyer, 1793), they regard the dingo as a junior taxonomic synonym for the dog Canis familiaris.[42] Gheorghe Benga and others support the dingo as a subspecies of the dog from the earlier Canis familiaris dingo (Blumenbach, 1780).[45][46][47]" - all brackets should be removed.

Also I note, the Blumenbach dates appear to be erroneous (originating from ITIS); I have checked and Blumenbach, 1779-1780 contains no reference to the dingo (relevant page is at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44318937), neither does Blumenbach, 1797; the earliest reference appears to be Blumenbach, 1799, which I believe is why this name is not cited either in MSW or in ICZN Opinion 451, being a later name than Canis dingo Meyer, 1793. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, I think the final sentence of the preceding paragraph should also be deleted, namely: "Although the earliest use of the name "dingo" was Canis familiaris dingo (Blumenbach, 1780),[40] Wozencraft attributed it to Meyer from 1793 without comment.[41]" I will send a note to the Taxacom mailing list (on which ITIS is a contributor) to alert them about the apparent error and see if there is any response. I also note that similar incorrect use of brackets can be found on the page dingo (perhaps contributed by the same person); either you or I can fix these as a separate exercise. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: names and dates - I think that covers it.

Re: Blumenbach, the reference I have under the article Dingo is this, which a contact on German Wikipedia supplied and interpreted for me. We have two sources with scanned copies that are different. Mine resides in the Kais kön. Hofbibliothek in Vienna. Unclear why there is a difference. William Harris • (talk) • 04:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi William, thanks for chasing this further... the Blumenbach reference you cite does contain the name dingo (as Canis familiaris dingo) but is from the 1799 edition of his Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, so post-dates its introduction by Meyer, available here: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27654915. I have checked the 1779-80 and 1797 editions of Blumenbach's work and neither contain the name, so I am presuming this is the earliest mention of the word, i.e. the concept of "Blumenbach 1780" for this name does not originate here and is most likely spurious. As mentioned above, I will broach this on Taxacom and see if others agree with this interpretation. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, well done. Several references cite Blumenback 1780 - your finding has upset the apple cart! I shall wait for your further enquiry; then I guess I will have to rewrite the Dingo section "Taxonomy"...... William Harris • (talk) • 08:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Tony, I have now amended the article as we have discussed elsewhere. Thanks for providing your advanced taxonomic knowledge. William Harris • (talk) • 11:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

the dog is a great companion when you don't have anyone to live your life with or if you just want to have a fraind

162.246.158.210 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It's Wikipedia, WP:NOTAHALLMARKCARD. Spintendo      16:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Conversely, the dog is a companion when you do have someone to live your life with and you don't need a friend! William Harris • (talk) • 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources for spiked collars on dogs being used to protect from predator animals like wolves.

In the competators section there is a claim that Dog collars were created to defend Dogs from wolves. https://www.dogcollarsboutique.com/A-History-of-Dog-Collars-sp-17.html This first article quotes the same piece of information stated in this Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_collar This page has a couple references that support the idea as well as two sources that do the same. Perhaps the two should be linked together with a hyperlink from this page leading to the other?

(Signed and dated for archive purposes only.) William Harris • (talk) • 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reproduction

The article states that it is possible for a female to mate with more than one male. I think that is a given. What it probably aims to say is that females can successfully mate with more than one male resulting in pups of different fathers being born in one litter. 51.7.211.207 (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Updated. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Williams Syndrome

It et al. reference in the introduction is misplaced. This is a single, prospective study. Because it's dog-related it got lots of attention in the press. That doesn't make it a consensus view. A careful reading of vonHoldt et al. suggests less than meets the eye. A single SNP on an allele corresponding to an area of the genome where, if an entire stretch of alleles are deleted, it triggers Williams Syndrome. Structural variants common to the general population. The main point of interest is a lack of hetereozygosity in the dog area, compared to wolves and humans. This suggests it's a zone of positive selection. But that's a long way from the speculation that dogs bear the stamp of Williams (hypersocial, intellectually diminished.) Also, it misrepresents Williams, in which hypersocial is an appearance due to "sticky gaze", induced by microsaccade problems. Dogs don't display problems with vision.BrianMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I have moved your comment under a new heading as it was lost where you had placed it.

I am never happy with a new piece of research being put into the lead unless it has a couple of associated primary references supporting it. I propose that it gets moved into the body of the article, rather than remain in the lead. Perhaps under "Differences from wolves", given that this is what the dog genes were being compared with. William Harris • (talk) • 10:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

etymology -- tagged as fv

I agree with an earlier comment that the etymology section doesn't belong -- should probably me moved to Wiktionary -- but while it's here, is the Kluge etymology correct? I don't have access to a clean copy, but it looks like OE finger-docce is in the etymology of the preceding word, Docke. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it was wrong. The writer didn't understand the other source either. Since the relevant info is already at Wiktionary, I deleted the section per DICT. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

I would like to add a picture of a dog as an example to aid the education of others. I understand that you have included many visual guides for viewers to determine what a Canis Familiaris is, but i feel that the dog I have photographed will shed even more light on this subject, as it shows what selective breeding can do to dogs and dog breeds. TheTomato206 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doggie (artist) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Doggo Language?

I was wondering if someone wants to bring the Doggo language to this page? https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/23/524514526/dogs-are-doggos-an-internet-language-built-around-love-for-the-puppers

• Bod (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article says much about humans but nothing about dogs. William Harris • (talk) • 11:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the language Sroma18 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

Please change [73] Reference. We have changed our domain for long time ago. frenchbulldog.org no longer exist, domain is sold and now we have ourfrenchie.com. Please change to this this article link: https://ourfrenchie.com/french-bulldog-temperament-and-personality/ Thank you! Lauvycom (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Reference 73 is an archived source, which is perfectly acceptable on wikipedia. ourfrenchie.com is a blog, and does not appear to be acceptable as a reliable source. In addition, the link you have provided [4] does not cover anything about artificial insemination and so is unsuitable as a replacement source. NiciVampireHeart 12:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2019

In the Diet section, "argenine" should be changed to the correct spelling of "arginine" Angolyad (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Already done by Nomopbs. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Shedog listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shedog. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Religion and mythology

Are there any reasons to have discussions of dog in certain religions get headlined under Religion and those of certain others under Mythology? My suggestion would be to have all religions (dead and alive) under a single heading, either mythology or religion.

Urapvr (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC) urapvr, August 10, 2019.

I entirely agree. It would appear that if text relates to the desert god - Christianity, Islam, Judaism - then it is classified here as "religion", and all other religions are classified as "mythology". Perhaps they might all appear under a title of "Mythology and religion"? William Harristalk 12:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Now actioned. William Harristalk 11:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Is it a good thing if "dog" is mentioned first, same as the article cat? There is no explanation in the lead why "domestic dog" is mentioned first. Hddty. (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONAME for the domestic dog is simply "dog". However, unlike the cat which is distinctly the household species Felis catus, the term dog can also refer to other canid species - please read the hatnote above the article. Therefore, the lead clarifies that the article is about the domestic dog, as opposed to the other types of dogs. William Harris • (talk) • 11:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

... as the lead in the Cat article clarifies that that article is about the domestic cat as opposed to the other types of cats, but with somewhat different ordering of the wording re domestic vs. non-domestic varieties. Is that difference a good thing? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The cat article states: "It is the only domesticated species in the family Felidae." That is not the case with the dog. The dog is not a species, and it is not the only domesticated subspecies of lupus - the other is the dingo/New Guinea singing dog. William Harristalk 11:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dog meat map

Pinging User:William Harris

Respectfully, you're misunderstanding how maps of laws are cited in the wikipedia community. To put a table of sources in the tiny file description would be way too cumbersome. Such tables are so cumbersome that they require their own wikipedia articles.

This map cites its sources exactly like any other map of laws on this site does; it refers to the article of reference, which contains the sources for each country. For examples, see these maps on LGBT rights, slavery, and age of consent. They are all the same as this map; none of them cite any source for any specific country/territory (except when there may have been a controversial change to the map).

If you have an issue with how a specific country is represented, bring it up on the respective talk page of the file or the article it references, and I'll be happy to fix the issue, but the map has no issue of original research, as you can find sources for each country in the respective article. Now please stop edit warring and disrupting this page by removing valuable educational content. RockingGeo (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

RockingGeo I am not concerned with what is done in other maps provided in other articles, nor how they were derived. This is Dog, a very high-profile article in the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia. You have approximately 20 countries listed on the map, so providing references would not be too onerous a task - you placed this map here and therefore you take on that responsibility as nobody else placed it here. For example, let us take Canada. If I were to kill a dog in Montreal and ate it, then my neighbour reports this to the police, and when they arrive I can point to which law that states that killing a dog and eating it is legal? Please cite the statue on which I might rely? William Harristalk 20:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@William Harris: Here are links to a few maps on featured articles that do the same thing: European Union member states by form of government, Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and Map of countries without armed forces. This is wikipedia practice, as citing the sources (in this case it's actually around 50 countries, and expanding) in the tiny file description would be redundant, cumbersome, and a waste of time.

As for killing your dog, please don't do that. But if you do something that is legal in your jurisdiction (ie NSW), you can't be arrested by law enforcement outside of that jurisdiction (ie South Australian police). This map is only for national laws though, so it only notes that they vary locally, not where. For country-specific knowledge, you'd need a different map. Anything on wikipedia is also not legal advice. If you are arrested for eating your dog, you'd need to contact a lawyer. RockingGeo (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You have no right to change my edit (above) to suit yourself. Reverting back to Canada, what is the law that states that it is legal to kill and consume a dog in Canada, because that is what your map purports.William Harristalk 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was unintentional. I replied while you were changing your comment, and we had an editing conflict, so I didn't catch that. I had no reason to change it. Whether you kill a dog in Canada or Australia, the sources are still found in the article.

And that isn't how laws work. Except when overriding another law, laws don't say if an action is legal. If there isn't a law defining an action to be illegal, then it's legal. Just look at the recent case in New Zealand [5]. There's no law against dog eating or killing dogs for consumption (there are only laws against killing animals for consumption in certain ways) in New Zealand, so the dog eater walked free. RockingGeo (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If something is enacted by legislature into statute, then it becomes legal. If something is not written in statute, then it is NOT ILLEGAL. Your maps are stating that the killing of dogs and cats for consumption is LEGAL, which it is not. Instead of being "educational" as you claim above, your map is misconstruing the facts - you have no original source that states that the killing and eating of cats and dogs in Canada, nor other jurisdictions, is legal - and that is why your edit was reverted. William Harristalk 04:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the legend. Now can we end this discussion? We both have better things to do. RockingGeo (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am quite happy to spend all the time in the world to ensure that what is reflected in the Wikipedia Canis—related articles is accurate. When I make maps on Commons, I always cite my sources. The map's meaning is hard to fathom, but yes, this will suffice. William Harristalk 09:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

195.251.99.2 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

yorkshire terriers are the best dog breads

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Dog saliva amylase

Hellow, I'm writing a research divulgation book about dog nutrition and I've found out the diet part is wrong in the salival amylase.

Dogs do NOT have amylase in their salive, (source: Animal Health Diagnostic Center, Cornell University School of Veterinary Medicine) but a lot later in the digestive process. No carnivore does that. Although dogs do produce amylase, the enzyme is added further down the digestive tract… in the pancreas and small intestine. That's what make them adaptative carnivores, but anyway, having amylase on saliva would instantly make dogs able to digest vegetal nutrients a lot better, making them instantly ommnivorous. Which is not even logical looking at their physiological metabolism and behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garzant (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for raising this. Did you check the cited reference that was provided (copy here)? I did, and was surprised:

Amylase is released by the pancreas, and in certain species such as humans, it is also created by the glands that produce saliva, allowing the enzyme to be present in the mouth. There, amylase can start to break down starch, releasing a sweet taste that helps the animal to detect starchy foods......Our results showed that amylase activity in saliva is more widespread among mammals than previously thought. In addition to species that were already known to express amylase in their saliva, we observed salivary amylase activity in some New World monkeys, boars, dogs, deer mice, woodrats, and giant African pouched rats. It is important to note here that our findings also suggest that amylase activity in dog saliva varies from breed to breed.

Either the study has got it wrong, or you have something extra for your book. William Harristalk 23:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Saarloos Wolfdogs having the "most" wolf DNA of all breeds

The article (and the Saarloos Wolfdog article—and I will be writing this there, as well) claim that the breed has the highest wolf percentage of any breed. However, the 2016 source: "Ancient Wolf Genome Reveals an Early Divergence of Domestic Dog Ancestors and Admixture into High-Latitude Breeds" doesn't mention the breed in the article and the real "source" seems to be an image it has in the article. Furthermore, they tested only 48 dog breeds. It doesn't seem to mention the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, which is an FCI recognised breed and typically tests as high, if not higher than Saarloos Wolfdogs on average. (The Saarloos has roughly 25% whilst the Czech has roughly 27%+). I can't find a proper breed register for Saarloos Wolfdogs, but www.wolfdog-database.com has recorded blood percentages (which are highly accurate, but theoretical and may have slight variations in reality). Given that the Saarloos is undergoing an out-crossing programme, the amount of wolf-content in the breed is likely to be further diluted. I dispute that the Saarloos Wolfdog has more content than any other breed, but even if that were true, the out-crossing programme is likely to change that very soon. The wikipedia article itself already claims that the Saarloos Wolfdog has a "quarter wolf blood". A better source is required to make the claim that the Saarloos has more grey wolf content than any other breed and that source must also consider the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, or else it can be disregarded since it is not comprehensive. 2600:6C44:6C00:383D:B080:25FB:A56D:2AAB (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to your claim, both are listed in Table S3 of Skoglund 2015, and a simple search in the PDF document would have found them both. That is what the latest science tells us. When you have a reliable source with figures after the proposed outcrossing program then we will be happy to see them. William Harristalk 08:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A simple PDF search doesn't show the information, but in either case I found the information in S3 (which is a separate document). The actual table writes [Czechoslovakian Wolf Dog -0.0139 -2.48 0.0019 0.22 12 Czechoslovakia] for the CS wolfdog and [Sarloos -0.0269 -5.15 -0.0142 -1.99 11 Netherlands] for the Saarloos wolfdog. It also writes, "In contrast, the Dutch Saarloos wolfdog was closer to present-day gray wolves than Taimyr 1 (Z = -5.2), in agreement with documented historical crossbreeding with wolves in this breed." This information is exactly true with the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog (as we can expect for the exact same reasons). Please, correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I don't interpret this as "show[ing] more genetic association with the grey wolf (Canis lupus) than any other breed". Rather, it shows that it has more content than Taimyr-1 (a wolf which belonged to a population which diverged from the common ancestor of grey wolves and dogs). Of course, an animal that was recently crossed with modern grey wolves is going to show more genetic association with Grey wolves than Taimyr-1. I don't interpret this as "more grey wolf than any other breed", but perhaps that is what the study is showing. I appreciate your attempts at clarifying this for me. I very well could just be misunderstanding this information and study.2600:6C44:6C00:383D:104:CE33:85AC:1351 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Both documents were available for download from the host website, they form part of the one study, and the main document references information in the supplementary document - you might like to be a bit more thorough next time. The Table-3 Z scores are showing affinity with "Taimyr" (Pleistocene wolf) and with the (modern grey) "wolf" - refer to those titles at the top of the table. Positive scores relate to allele (gene expression) relatedness with the Taimyr wolf and negative to the modern wolf. Closest affinity with the Taimyr wolf is the Siberian Husky 4.27, Greenland dog 3.64, Shar Pei 2.98 etc - not surprising given their ancestral proximity to the Taimyr Peninsula. Affinity to the modern grey wolf is Sarloos -5.15, Czech -2.48 etc (and most unexpectedly, the English Springer Spaniel -2.93 whatever that was originally bred from since the 1500s - it is possible that the extinct British wolf is not entirely gone from the canid gene pool). An attempt to match the Taimyr wolf to the modern wolf gave inconsistent results. A similar finding was found by Frantz 2016, with the genetic division of dogs falling first between the Sarloos wolfdog from all other dogs (due to its wolf ancestry), followed by the division of western Eurasian from eastern Eurasian dogs - and yes the Czech wolfdog was included.

Nonetheless, I am not opposed to removing both the picture and the statement, as neither are illustrative of the subheading "Differences from wolves". Do any other editors have an opinion on this? William Harristalk 08:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

pls can i edit this actucle some of the text in here is un accurate SlinkingApple57 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@SlinkingApple57:, A) when making a request, please phrase it in the form of "Change (X) to (Y) because (reason)," and B) learn how to spell and use grammar correctly, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

sister taxon(taxa) Trilokchand123 (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Please rephrase your request in the form of "change X to Y because (reason Z)" please.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Last revert

"An infant refers to a human." Are you sure? In the documentaries I've seen and biology books I've read very young animals are referred to as infants. Here's an excerpt from Animal Behavior by John Alcock: "Williams had this point brought home most forcefully while he was watching a film on a breeding colony of seals. Infants separated from their mothers in the chaos of the rookery made repeated attempts to approach other adult females to nurse. Despite the desperation and hunger of the orphans the females almost invariably rebuffed them, often attacking them and flinging them away brutally. The orphans were doomed to die of starvation on a beach where hundreds of lactating females were feeding their single pups. Female seals are not motivated in the slightest degree to help the population as a whole. If selfish behavior increases the number of a female's offspring reaching reproductive age, it is favored by selection. A female seal that spent her time and offered her milk supporting an infant other than her own would be promoting some other seal's genes." --Countryboy603 (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

By far the most common use of "infants" is in reference to humans. Though technically and biologically the term can refer to many different species, your replacement of clear nouns like "puppies", which already are listed in the Terminology section of this article, was not an improvement. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

i just want to be able to edit Coral97 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Dog is a semi-protected page, to reduce vandalism. This means your account must be at least 4 days old, and you must make at least 10 (preferably constructive) edits somewhere on Wikipedia, before you will be able to edit here. Virtually every editor goes through the same process. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:45, 17 november

Other names

Hello, I am wondering if we can add the word, 'Doggy' to the lead as another name for Dog, since it is a well accepted international term for Dog. I have seen other Wikipedia articles use common terms for other words. I did not want to add it without a consensus. If others can leave their opinions here, I'd appreciate it. I will add it if people agree. Thanks. Battykin (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be opposed. "Doggy" is an affectionate diminutive nickname, akin to "baby talk". One wouldn't add "kiddies" to the lede of an article about human infants. Nor should "doggy" be considered an appropriate 'common' alternative to "dog" in the lede. Mbuell72 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

mDNA vs mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA acronym)

While the wikipedia page for mitochondrial DNA lists mDNA as an acceptable alternative, such usage is rare (at best). A web search for 'mDNA' turns up an album by Madonna. A web search for mtDNA turns up mitochondrial DNA, as it should. See 'mitochondrial DNA' pages as listed below for reference and validation:

medlineplus.gov/genetics/mitochondrial-dna, International Society of Genetic Geneology: , or thefreedictionary - medical dictionary where, in all transparency, mDNA is shown as a secondary form: "also seen as". MGBuell Mbuell72 19:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Cuteness

idk it just seems weird to me that nowhere in this article does it say anything about the cuteness of dogs. Its pretty much a universal phenomenon that people thing dogs are cute so it seems like it should have some place in this article cause its an important part of the human dog relationship for many with pets Finnigami (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed topic is about something that humans think, whereas this article is about the dog. William Harris (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's about the relationship between dogs and humans, which is an important part of dogs' history and what dogs are. Finnigami (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You have been around for a few years; perhaps you now have a topic for a new section in this article? Don't forget to cite WP:RELIABLE sources; you might find some of these templates at WP:CITET useful. William Harris (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

On one level, I agree with Finnigami, but I see a difficulty in scientifically representing "cuteness". However, should someone desire, a paragraph regarding the recent study on the oxytocin loop between dogs and humans would be useful (i.e. that phenomenon aka 'the gaze'). IMO, that is almost certainly the source of both the "cuteness" factor, and a major feature distinguishing Canis familiaris from Canis lupus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbuell72 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My view is that Oxytocin relates to the human-canine bond, whereas "cuteness" relates to Neoteny (Paedomorphosis) with the retention of juvenile features - dogs grow up to retain some of their looks to be similar to puppies. Wolf puppies look cute but grown wolves do not. (Which brings me to the topic of the modern wolf not being the ancestor of the dog, and so the dog grows up to look like its Pleistocene ancestor which our hunter-gatherer ancestors found attractive; but that is another story.) William Harris (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Relating "cuteness" to neotony is subjective, unless somebody has done some study to justify it. Even if a relationship was found, neotony might arguably not be the causative factor for "cuteness", but rather simply coincidental. I ran across a very recent study yesterday (study was 2019) that identified eye muscle structures that do not exist in wolves, and allow dogs to express emotion with their eyes. I think that would support the oxytocin loop, which is tied to mutual eye contact, as a significant factor in the "cuteness" perception. Since you (William Harris) would probably be interested in this work, here is the link: Evolution of facial muscle anatomy in dogs Oh, and BTW, I'm pretty sure that the "cuteness" factor initially proposed is intimately tied to the human-canine bond. However, as I was previously unaware of that page - having now seen it - any discussion of cuteness, and neotony, along with the more recent ocytocin work, and the facial muscle study belong on that page. :D MGBuell Mbuell72 00:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your informed views and the article link. William Harris (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References