Talk:Goldendoodle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Country of origin

Are we sure the country of origin is Australia? Sources for this assertion? I'm leaving it for now, but I wouldn't bet on it.... Quill 21:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems from reading around that the Labradoodle is usually described at originating from Australia, based on the first recorded organised breeding programme (rather than random matings). I've seen the same said for the Goldendoodle on a couple of sites, but without any details. So I left it (and added it into the table) for the same reason you did Quill. Maybe "worldwide" or "various" would be more accurate? -- sannse (talk) 12:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, 'various'--something like that...or 'uncertain'...'not yet determined'...anything like that, whatever you think best. Quill 09:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've gone for "various" and tried to explan that in the text. -- sannse (talk) 17:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It turned out very well, Sannse! Quill 00:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits

• The labradoodle is not a recognized purebred in Australia. Some recognize it as a breed-under-development, some won't even accord it that much status.

• I think the paragraph on the hybrid's background should be left as is. I see no evidence to state definitively that this hybrid's sole place of origin is Australia.

• I am challenging the inclusion of Cont. Kennel Club and UKCI in the breed tables. I will put my argument on the TALK page os the dogproject.

Quill 00:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A link to that discussion --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds - sannse (talk) 16:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits

I don't usually clarify my edits, but we seem to have some cross-purposes starting here and I want to forestall anything like an edit war.

• I have re-replaced the definitive statement about Australian origins with the various-countries origin as discussed above; no references have been given to counter this.

• I have attempted to remove repetitive discussions of the purpose of the dogs' breeding and the hypoallergenic stuff; it doesn't need to be repeated.

• Removed duplicated words next to links ([[Poodle]] shows up in the article, so it doesn't need to repeat Poodle [[Poodle]]).

• Removed technical term of "F1" in first paragraph since that's too much detail early and it is discussed later in the article.

• Tone down POV by removing, e.g., "beautiful". Also for NPOV, seems clear that some people think that only a 1st-generation hybrid is a goldendoodle while others are trying to establish a breed that breeds true. Have modified the appropriate paragraph to show the differences of opinion.

• Merge back in overwritten text that had links to other articles, e.g., to assistance dogs.

• Replaced "minor" referring to these kennel clubs as discussed above.

• Reorganized a bit and added headings to make redundancies clearer.

Elf | Talk 05:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New photo

I hope that everyone who usually works on this page is alright with this picture. I think that it really shows what a Goldendoodle looks like. It is a picture of my goldendoodle, Bailey, when he was about 14 months old. Feedback is appreciated! --Corey520 01:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks. I removed the name from the article; wikipedia breed articles have avoided using names. But of course it can go on the image description page (which you already did). Elf | Talk 04:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I added a picture of my Goldendoodle, as well... her name is Shelby. Thanks to Trysha... I didn't realize that additional pictures were to be put only in the body of the article. --kramtark 22:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo revisions, removal

I removed the main picture and replaced it with one of the more suitable ones from the gallery, though if someone has a better picture with a plain background please feel free to upload it. Removed one photo from the gallery that was too informal for the article, adjusted the contrast in two of the remaining images.--RadariG 19:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The selection of photos that the article has right now are wonderful! They reveal the natural variation within the hyrid but also show what features seem to appear in each generation. They look like terrific dogs. of course, with a poodle and a GR, how could one go wrong? Two of the best companion breeds there are. I wish the other Hyrid articles had this many photos showing the various ages. it's hard yto get an idea of the nature of the hybrid from only cute baby puppy pix. Lisapollison 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got a goldendoodle, how do I upload a pic?

Additional Pictures

How many more pictures, and in what style, are we looking for here? --kramtark 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The number of pictures usualy depends on article length, two or three pictures is usually good. Too many pictures clutters an article. Personally I'd like to see a nicer uncluttered photo for the main photo and move that main photo down into the body - the woods in the background looks kind of busy to me. Pictures of dogs against a solid background (like the dogs on green grass photos that many dog pages use) are best in my opinion. Something that shows a good representation of the dog, like a simple sitting or standing photo without wagging or motion. A picture of a goldendoodle in harness doing guide work would also be nice, since that's a common use for these dogs. - Trysha ^(talk)

As of the date of my input here, there are a total of five pics, two in the body of the article and three in the gallery. All are of the most common color type of goldendoodles, white. I would like to see the different common colors of these goldendoodles, and differences between mini's and standard goldendoodles. I also hear there are some breeders using toy poodle sires (versus mini's) for breeding. Additionally, back-crossing the hybrids is becoming more popular resulting in (typically) 75% poodle 25% golden retriever, less so the 75% golden and 25% poodle. Can anyone contribute any such somewhat representative photo's to the gallery (so as not to clutter the article itself)? Anthronify 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Should this article be merged into Poodle hybrid? --Mdwyer 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hard to say definitively, but there are a few hybrids that are so common & so widespread with info to say about them that we've felt in the past that it's worth leaving articles about them. Elf | Talk 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Poodle Hybrid? No. For the same reason we don't create the topic "golden retriever hybrid" to merge this article into. People input "goldendoodle" into the wiki search to learn about goldendoodles --not to get information about poodle hybrids.Anthronify 04:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

gallery

I removed the gallery per WP:NOT, WP:Images and WP:IUP, as it has several repetitive images, had no clear parameters and served no encylopedic purpose not already filled in the article. Wikipedia is not a gallery for pet pictures. I added an image of a puppy from the gallery, as no other puppy images were present and illustrating age differences in the breed is important. VanTucky 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

UKC

I have just reverted an attempt to claim goldendoodles are recognized by the United Kennel Club. This is untrue for several reasons.

• Firstly, goldendoodles are not a breed- they are mutts/"designer dogs" usually resulting in a cross between two pure-breds. As such, they do not have a breed standard. Traits of a litter cannot be successfully predicted.
• The UKC does not list them.
• This site lists the requirements for UKC registration. You'll note number 4 for "Things To Do Before You Breed A Litter" reads "Make sure the proposed sire and dam are the same breed. If not, the litter cannot be registered."

Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm not so sure that this article is written from a Neutral Point of View - especially when I come across phrases such as "Goldendoodles are intelligent, friendly, and great with kids" :-) Stwalkerster talk 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It would help if there was some sourcing. Any at all. VanTucky ^Talk 20:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

An article should not be overladen with images. Please can someone tell me of what value the extra images are, BEFORE they are added again. Thanks, :-) Stwalkerster talk 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid??

It says that the Goldenoodle is a hybrid. Hybrids are two species mixed together (wolf/dog, horse/donkey, ect...) Two dogs from diffrent breeds's puppies would be classified mutts. I'm going to fix this.

The paragraph above is wrong. Two different species cannot interbreed and produce viable hybrid offspring: that's part of the definition of speciation. Horse and donkeys produce mules, which are unviable (sterile). Wolves and dogs are now recognised as belonging to the same species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.35.158 (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV more

yo the temperament section is pretty NPOV also it's a little fruity fix this please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.173.252 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Images AGAIN

I'm not the first to complaint about excessive images in this article, and I'm sure I won't be the last. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a pet photo gallery. Illustrating the diversity of the hybrid breed has already been accomplished by the two images in the article, and I think they are all we really need. If you feel a image merits inclusion in the article, please leave a note here about why you think it merits inclusion when you add it. Thanks. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The one of the puppy was especially important because these dogs change a lot as they mature. Also, since there is a wide variety of appearances in this pseudobreed, I think more images is an absolute necessity. I would recommend checking out some of the images on this website to see what I mean. Illinois2011 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note Just as a comparison, let's look at the articles for the two breeds of dogs that goldendoodles come from. Golden Retriever has 13 images and Poodle has 8 images, both of which are more than on this article. Illinois2011 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but just because those articles may merit high numbers of images doesn't mean this one merits such a high number. I personally think the exact opposite of your thinking, I think that the high variability doesn't act as an impetus for more images precisely because it would be impossible to convey the variability via images in a single article, as the article would end up being mostly images. Since the two parent breeds behaviors are largely enclosed in this hybrid, it seems excessive that we'd need photos for personality traits and activities shared with the parent breed. Instead, there should be a reference to that this behavior is similar to the parent breed. That said, I'm okay with four of the images in this article after further review. I think the photo of the 11-month female is clearly excessive, as the color variation is illustrated by the rabbit tracking photo, and the image doesn't really provide much beyond that. However, I'll leave that up to consensus to dicate whether it belongs. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

References were added

Then someone decided that the references were unimportant and removed all but 3. I have restored the references and would appreciate it if they are kept as is. Yes, they are to a website that is privately owned, but it is the website that all of the published Goldendoodle Books reference, and is the original source of information available on the subject of Goldendoodles. Everything else is a derivative work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.231.160 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

References again

Please explain why Internet based sources of material are less desirable than books? Does this mean that wikipedia is irrelevant as well? The books cited are derivative works, gaining much of their information from the website(s) the editor deemed as inappropriate references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.230.89 (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling this article out

Okay... This article is a mess.

• It has serious NPOV issues.
• It rambles.
• It drifts around from topic to topic even within sentences.
• The temperment section is an advertisement.
• Still too many pictures.
• Unreferenced.

So... I'm calling this article out. Does anyone want to volunteer to do a re-write? Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How about just a complete wipe, with the words: "Goldendoodle: a mutt with some characteristics of Golden Retrievers and Poodles." To the point, factual, and says all there is to say about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.3.1 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious Logic

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the following statement from the second paragraph of purpose contains fallacious logic and, if so, should be removed or revised.

"Goldendoodles also make excellent bird dogs because Golden Retrievers are bird dogs."

This seems to be an example of genetic fallacy because it states that a characteristic is true of goldendoodles because it is true of one of the parent breeds.

This statement also makes a generalization about the breed that may not be true for a significant minority. I feel this should be clarified if the statement is rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colten Michael Long (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Citation required"?

There is a statement in the Purpose section saying there is no study that proves the "hypoallergenic" nature of these dogs' coats, but it has a "citation required" tag. How can you cite studies that don't exist? it's like proving a negative. Trxi (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goldendoodle. 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/20141129084952/http://www.goldendoodleassociation.com/service_dogs.aspx to http://www.goldendoodleassociation.com/service_dogs.aspx

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) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Florida International University course assignment

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstinguidi (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kirstinguidi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

I think the previous image (#1), is superior to the subsequent image (#2). Facial resolution is clearer (eyes can be seen), angle is more frontal rather than rear, and the dog's legs appear to be more proportional to the body. The other dog appears to have unusually short legs, or it's some optical illusion from the angle. So for this reason I'm changing it back. See MOS:Images for more guidance on image selection. We can discuss here if there is significant disagreement and we can come to some consensus on best lead image. MartinezMD (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• 
  original (#1)
• 
  (#2)

I've restored the original image pending the outcome of this discussion. The original image appears more aesthetically pleasing to me, face on with visible facial features. Is there some characteristic of goldendoodles that is shown in the proposed image that is not evident in the original image? Meters (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you I believe, #1 is better. Anonymous editors and User:Reagan83 keep switching it to #2. MartinezMD (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup. The original image is better picture, and should not be changed unless there is a good reason. Let's see if the other editors have some valid reason to prefer the proposed image instead. Meters (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've put in a request for page protection since this person reverted again and won't engage on the talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hypoallergenic

I feel this is a VERY substantial misnomer. First, the level of cross breeding affects the % of poodle vs golden. Secondly, they are dogs. They are about as hypoallergenic as dragging a rug through your yard. Pollen and other allergens are easily propagated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlepisto (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

First report of breeding

I reverted the entry about Monica Dickens. It is appropriately sourced. No claim is made about the name, just that they were bred. "they have a wonderful breed of dog all their own - poodles crossed with golden retrievers." MartinezMD (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the quote you have provided does not state what the first time those two breeds were ever crossed was 1969, only an instance occurred then, and yes what is stated in the article infers that name was used in 1969. If you wish to reword the sentence removing the unfounded claim that they were first crossed in that year, and also removing the portmanteau that was first adopted in the 1990s then you are welcome to do so. Cavalryman (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

I've made adjustments to the statement. Better to correct than to delete entirely. MartinezMD (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump

I see no need to include a report that an organisation tried to foist a Goldendoodle onto the Trumps only to have the offer declined, I propose removing that sentence. Cavalryman (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

This article has been substantially edited to remove much of the information it had before. The fact that a Goldendoodle was considered by a sitting president goes to support the notoriety of the crossbreed. You said "foist" - do you intend that to with the opinion connotation the definition provides?

The removal of "first dog" is also not beneficial to the reader. It provides context as to the history of various pets in the white house and a link to relevant reading for those who are unaware of the history or tradition. Patton, the dog who was subject of the proposed placement alone may be notable along with a number of other goldendoodle dog breeds, similar to how they are mentioned at Golden_Retriever, regardless of acceptance by POTUS or not.

Efforts to rebuild this article should be welcomed considering the substantial prior removals for which citation requests would have given other editors time to support the statements. Mlepisto (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cavalryman, just because someone offered one to the president is not significant or notable. noq (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Mlepisto, all of the information previously removed was either unsourced or cited to sources that failed WP:RS. I welcome relevant additions to the article, I am simply questioning irrelevant additions per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Cavalryman, you did not reply as to your intent with the usage of foist. It makes me question NPOV. Can you please respond? Thank you. Mlepisto (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mlepisto, my apologies it may be due to a language gap but I do not understand your question. The fact is this dog was never the “first dog” and so is not notable. Cavalryman (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

Foist can be defined as unwelcome. I do not believe it was stated as such or in a manner that implied that in the sources so your use of that word here makes me question and therefore asked to clarify your intent. The Fact the dog did not become the first dog does not negate the fact it received significant media coverage which makes it notable. Many other dogs have received media coverage to support their notability without any connection to state leaders. This particular one just happened to receive it with that connection. Mlepisto (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest you read WP:NOTNEWS, momentary media coverage does not make notability. Cavalryman (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

F1/F2 crosses

I see no need to include a paragraph about first and second generation crossbreeds that is not specific about Goldendoodles and is already far better covered in the crossbreed article, I propose removing it. Cavalryman (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

I disagree. Are we certain there are no variances? It also provides the reader a summary of the context for which it should be linked to additional detail per my previous comment on the revert. The sources are specific to this cross, not all crosses in general, so how can we be sure they are not different? However I will concede, if you further apply that policy and remove those from all individual cross breed articles for uniformity. Mlepisto (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mlepisto, I am talking about this article, if I saw it in another article about a crossbreed I would remove it from that article also. And yes, F1 stands for the first filial generation of a cross, F2 the second etc, this is not code specific to Goldendoodles. I thank you for conceding it is unnecessary in this article, I will remove it accordingly. Cavalryman (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

Please work to add to and improve this article.

Cavalryman your recent edits are not helpful in improving the summary of this article. Further they may be demotivating to other editors who have put their time into building it, even if misguided on source issues. Please work to source poorly sourced information vs just deleting. Mlepisto (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mlepisto, I understand you are new so can I suggest you read WP:Reliable source and WP:Assume good faith. I stumbled upon this article in a truely atrocious state and so have added the first reliable sources to the page. It is great that you are adding to the article, it is my hope that others do, but that does not mean everything added is worthy of inclusion and it is beholden upon all editors to critically evaluate everything on Wikipedia. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

Mlepisto, I understand from your user page that you are a very inexperienced editor and seeking guidance, so I have a couple of points I hope you take on board:

• WP:Verifiability is one of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia, accordingly attribution is vitally important to facilitate verifiability, it is very important when citing that you include information such as the authors of an article and the date of publication, without these if (when) the link to the article breaks the source is no longer verifiable and so is of no value.
• Additionally, when adding sources please respect the Use dmy dates templates that are clearly visible at the top of two pages you have been editing recently, consistent date formatting is important to the article’s appearance.

Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC).

Notability

The Goldendoodle cross has received much significant, non-trivial coverage. A perfect example of this significant, non-trivial coverage is the article comparing the behaviour of Goldendoodles with that of Golden Retrievers and Standard poodles. The article can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6940824/

The mention of Goldendoodles in this article is not trivial, they are a main subject of the article, and it is a detailed article about their specific behavioural traits. This article need not be the sole source of information about Goldendoodles (see wiki policy on notability here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), but the authors of the study are certainly independent of Goldendoodles, if anything they seem critical as is typical of scientists.

This article is just one example of how we can establish notability, but there are other articles we can keep listing and listing that meet every single guideline on Wikidpedia's notability guidelines. If the notability flag is added again, we should arbitrate immediately, and I will do so with the notability flag off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hello Jenny8975309 (talk · contribs), your additions to this page are not attributed to WP:Reliable sources, a dog crossbreed association does not meet Wikipedia’s standards. Do you have any reliable sources for your additions? If not they will be removed. Cavalryman (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC).

The crossbreed association is recognized by OFA, Pennhip, and Good Dog, among others. They have not sought AKC recognition because of the requirement to close studbooks, which is not desired due to the deleterious effect on genetic diversity and related health issues. It has been in existence for over a decade and meets all breed group requirements. The information in the page is not current.

Additionally, that was only one reference cited and there are other references you deleted the information from. Other citations include scientific papers and major canine genetics laboratories that base their information on the scientific literature as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny8975309 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have never heard of any of those organisations you have listed above (which does not necessarily negate them) but here on Wikipedia we rely on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, your crossbreed association is not independent of the association, in fact they have an interest in the promotion of the crossbreed. This may seem frustrating to a new editor, but it ensures the encyclopedia prevents promotional or inaccurate information being included. Cavalryman (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC).

Since the breed association actually sets the standards for a breed I'm trying to understand how there can be any more reliable authority. Any other authority would by definition have to refer to the official breed standard, and that is created by the breed association.

The other sources cited include primary literature (again, reliable) as well as certified third party laboratories run by canine geneticists and veterinarians and these sources have primary literature citations within them as well.

I do not see how your claim for unreliable sources can stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.19.45 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello 75.89.19.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (I presume you are also Jenny8975309 (talk · contribs)), given this is a dog crossbreed and the reliable secondary sources already cited state there is a great deal of variation in these dogs because they are an unstable cross between two established breeds, any breed standard is speculation at best. As I have already stated above, dog breed (or in this case crossbreed) associations are not independent of their breed (or crossbreed) and so are not considered reliable sources, their existence and even some of their activities can be included in articles provided that information is cited to reliable secondary sources independent of those associations.

As I have have stated above, only one of the sources you have cited can be considered reliable and it makes no mention of the Goldendoodle, the information it imparts belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Further, you have removed information cited to reliable sources stating it is "not current", unless you can provide reliable secondary sources that corroborate this then I am afraid it will be restored. Cavalryman (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC).