Talk:Hundesprechschule Asra

Coatracking the book

The article is nominally about talking dogs. It should not be sidetracked by information about Nazi or German or Hitler's own attitude towards non-talking dogs, even if such information is in the book by Bondeson. Abandoned family pets are off topic. This article is not about Bondeson's book, nor is it about the history of dogs in Germany. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Nazi dogs, but absolutely all sources I have used and all I am going to use are based on the book. I was even thinking about writing the article about the book itself, but the sources are not really reviews of the book. They are more about the dogs. According to Wikipedia:Coatrack "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." I do not understand how this section The book that is sourced by the main sourced used in the article could be removed for being "coatrack"?Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The tone of anger is the key: Jews being hauled off and leaving their dogs, with German citizens apparently more concerned about the dogs. This is an interesting bit of information, but it is not at all about the talking dog program. It is a coatrack for the Holocaust. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"The tone of anger"? I simply quoted information that is found not in just one, but in a few RS that I used for this very article, and that are directly related to the subject. Is this information about the Holocaust? Yes, maybe, but much more it is an information that explains how much the dogs were prized in Germany at that time.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not at all about talking dogs, or even potentially talking dogs. It is about German dog pets, normal pets untrained for special purposes. Not useful in this article. If you want to port the information to a relevant article, write one about the book or about Dogs in Germany, or similar. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Bondeson believes it is a relevant information in connection to talking dogs, a few reliable sources cover this information. I am not sure why wikipedia should be different, because it is not a reliable source? So let's agree to disagree at this point, and wait for more opinions.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bondeson is writing a Cabinet of Canine Curiosities, a project with a scope defined by himself. We are writing an encyclopedia article, and our scope is limited by policy. We cannot combine two topics into one article, per WP:COATRACK. The other topic is where the non-talking dogs should go. This is only about attempted talking dogs. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't understand what you're objecting to. The article describes the Nazi talking dog program; what specific items or sentences in the article do you think should be removed? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm objecting to any part of the article discussing Nazi or German views regarding normal family dogs, ones which were not considered part of the talking dog project. I would remove the following parts:

• "Bondeson commented that Germans were animal lovers, and were more concerned with the dogs that persecuted Jews left behind, than they were with the Jews themselves."
• "Part of the Nazi philosophy was that there was a strong bond between humans and nature - they believed a good Nazi should be an animal friend. Indeed, when they started interning Jews, the newspapers were flooded with outraged letters from Germans wondering what had happened to the pets they left behind."
• "Hitler himself loved dogs. Before he committed suicide by shooting himself, he shot dead one of his dogs."

These sentences have nothing to do with the talking dog project. Rather, they are about German attitudes toward pet dogs before and during WWII. This article is not about pet dogs at all. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the off-topic bits. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I added it back. I believe we should wait for more editors to express their opinion. The article was viewed by 341 people yesterday, and so far nobody but you complained about coatracking of the book. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's absurd! You are guessing at what other editors might have been thinking, guessing that they read as far as the last section. Rather than guessing, I have quoted applicable Wikipedia policy. You have poor backing for your wish to include this information, only that it comes from the same author; an inadequate justification. The indicated text is off-topic. How much more explanation does this require? Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not require anymore explanations. It only requires a few more days (not one, a few) of waiting, and a few more (not one, a few) opinions of other editors but you and me, if you do not mind please.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no such sub-policy as part of WP:COATRACK. The guideline does not describe how coatracked material should be given a few days leeway. It's not my opinion we are talking about, it is standard encyclopedia style to present the topic without diversion. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Most policies could be read in a different way. I'd like to get a consensus for proposed change, if you do not mind please. Let's wait for a few days.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You need a better rationale for putting those bits into the article. Consensus is needed for inclusion, not deletion. At WP:COATRACK it says be bold and delete coatrack text. It does not say be lax and let it stand for a few days. I have a good reason for taking it out; you have not got a good reason for putting it in. Which of us would you side with if you were not personally involved? Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I gave my rationale above. I do not believe this to be WP:COATRACK, you do. Let's wait for other users opinions. This piece you are talking about is not vandalism, not BLP violation, nothing will happen to wikipedia, if it stays until a few more users will state their opinions.Please let's leave it now, and work on something else.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Following your reversion, the material under discussion was deleted by Westbankfainting, who writes "agree with the talk page; this stuff not about teaching dogs to talk." Philg88, Mandarax and Invertzoo came along afterward and touched up the article, but they did not restore the coatracked text. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get it; this is an article about Nazi talking dogs. Why would Nazi's attitudes to dogs in general not be relevant? The actual source on this thought it was relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not include Nazi attitudes toward talking in general? Let's see how diffuse and unfocused we can make this article. </sarcasm> Binksternet (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a particularly good analogy; "Nazi dogs" is pretty close to "Nazi talking dogs" (particularly as the source himself makes these connections), versus "Nazis and talking". Please try again, with a straightforward non-sarcastic response, per WP:TALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs critical tone

The Nazi project was destined to fail, and ultimately failed, but the article does not emphasize this aspect. The article needs more of a critical tone. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not finished working on it yet, but of course I will appreciate, if somebody adds "critical tone" and whatever information to the article. I took template "under constructions" out for this very purpose.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Is Nazi Talking Dogs the best title for this article? What did the Germans call the program? What does Bondeson call the program? Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The nazi called it "Wooffan SS", but no source has this name in the titles, and of course no Wikipedia reader will be searching for this name. I am open for suggestions about the name change, but I believe it is better to use English name. Besides the article is not only about "Wooffan SS" itself, but also about the book.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, this article is not about the book. That would be coatracking the Jewish dog bit, the Holocaust. The article is about the Nazi plan of trying to make dogs talk. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly does the 'Wooffan SS' tag originate? The Telegraph article does not explicitly say it was the codename as suggested in the article. TBH it sounds like literary licence on the part of an English-speaker. Hack (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what is "Wooffan SS", but the Telegraph article and other articles are using the name: "Hitler’s plan was apparently to ensure that his “Wooffan SS” forces could communicate with their SS masters". Looks like other language sources are using this name too. So it was my understanding that it was a codename for this program.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the Telegraph journalist, or even the author of the book, might have used the word in jest and it went viral. The German words for dog bark it would appear are wau-wau or wuff, making it incredibly unlikely IMO that they would go for an English usage that seems to be making fun of the Waffen-SS... Hack (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May I please ask you to look for an article about these dogs written in German? If you find one, maybe it will be easier to understand what “Wooffan SS” stands for. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I will donate £100 to the WMF if the codename of this project really was "Wooffan SS" or whatever. No way José. Sorry to be so blunt. I have removed it from the article until it can be sourced per WP:V. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The material has now been restored despite being a clear violation of WP:V. Sigh. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

...and now resolved to the satisfaction of all. :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Woofan SS" is absurd

Saw this article on the did you know page. The source provided (there are two sources at the end of that sentence, but only one that contains "Woofan SS") does NOT say that "Woofan SS" was what the German's called the talking dog research. It's a joke made by the article writer. The German military, Nazi or otherwise, is about as humorless as most. Presumably this is an ESL problem.Westbankfainting (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it might be worth mentioning in the article. How should it be phrased? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a German language source that uses the same language"--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't read any German, do you? Doesn't support the false claim previously made (that the this was the nazi "code-name.") It's borrowing from... the Telegraph article, quite explicitly.Westbankfainting (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch your language, I mean "the false claim". There was no false claim made.I wrote it as I understood the source. Mistake? Maybe. A false claim? No!---Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The claim that the Nazi's called the talking dog research the "Woofen SS" was manifestly false. The falsehood may have arisen from a lack of English language skills, or of attention, or for some other reason, but it was still a falsehood. No source provided made that claim. For some reason, you imagined that a source did. Perhaps people whose grasp of written English isn't strong should take a step back?Westbankfainting (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If I am to ask you to shut up, will you be able to understand this idiom written in my "grasp of written English"?I hope you will because it looks to me that this is the only English you are able to understand :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll give you a chance. What is the reason you inserted a false claim into an encyclopedia article? An answer that it was merely "a mistake" is insufficient. I want to understand HOW you could come to a novel conclusion that was not supported by any of the source material. The kindest interpretation is that your grasp of written English is poor. But I'm willing to listen to other explanations. How did you make this error?Westbankfainting (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a better explanation is that British wit is sometimes inscrutable to Americans? In any case, the error has been corrected so it's probably best to drop the issue now. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Either the person who made that absurd claim isn't a native speaker of English in any of its iterations (likeliest option by far) or they deliberately misconstrued. One or the other for sure. Something i can say with 100% confidence? That they're not a native English speaker. They're not even a decent speaker of English as a second language. Take that to the bank.Westbankfainting (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May I remind you to comment on the content of the article and not the contributor? You may also want to drop this issue now it's been resolved. Thank you. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What's been resolved? It's important to be aware of editors who are not competent judges of sources and who try to delete comments pointing that out, no? Sometimes the content IS the contributor. I.e. if a contributor continues to insist on bad content, that needs to be addressed.Westbankfainting (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, no, you have it the wrong way round. Assuming one is faced with a goodfaith contributor, as is clearly the case here, one continues to point out mistakes with content as and when they appear. There is no need to bring the contributor into the equation at all. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a brief review provides a consistent pattern of glaring errors by the "contributor." Would you like me to share that pattern with you here? Or, perhaps, you're willing to accept that it's disturbing that an error this serious (and easy to detect) was made here, and get off my back? I'm sure no one on this page cares to have the broader pattern thrust at them... but if my fairly reasonable conclusions are attacked again, I will do so. Up to you. The interesting question is, of course, why an editor with a history of glaring errors is allowed to carry on.Westbankfainting (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not on your back, I want errors to be corrected as much as you. What outstanding errors are there that need fixing? That is the question. If it's a good faith editor making repeated mistakes, it takes a lot before Wikipedians (generally) start taking preemptive action. Rather, I for one would fix mistakes as I discover them. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Source for including "rheumatologist" in the article?

Could somebody please point me to the source for this, and while we are here to explain to me why his occupation should be included in the article, if his introduction is linked to the article about him. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. The only source used at Jan Bondeson, the doctor's homepage at Cardiff U. Are you sure no one has told you this already? http://medicine.cf.ac.uk/en/person/dr-jan-bondeson/ Westbankfainting (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. As for why his profession should be included, it appears that "Cardiff U." is included to create an aura of expert authority around him for this rather odd tale. So at least we should include what it is he does at Cardiff U. I think it would be fine to remove what he does for a living if the university is removed as well, but not otherwise.Westbankfainting (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is POV and original research and should not be included in the article. His occupation is not in any single source used in the article. Please stop engaging in original research, and remove POV you added to the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not making sense. Are you suggesting he is not a rheumatologist at Cardiff U? His own home page at Cardiff U. defines him that way.Westbankfainting (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you heard about wp:or by any chance? The difference between the name of university and his occupation is that the name of university is mentioned in the used sources while his occupation is not. So you engaged in the original research, went to his home page and found his occupation, and inserted POV in the article, but whatever, you made me tired, and I am not interested in communicating with a user who is not able to assume good faith and keeps on attacking me personally. I am unwatching this article. Do as you wish. I have more interesting things to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

At least my edit has the virtue of being accurate, instead of your description of Bondeson as a "historian" which was 100 percent inaccurate. Was that not "original research?" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_talking_dogs&oldid=431078201. When you complained to another editor that Bondeson should be described as a historian, the other editor seemed to be of the opinion that this gentleman is far from being qualified as a source on such matters (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIridescent&action=historysubmit&diff=431204290&oldid=431203015). Westbankfainting (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No it was not original research. It was taken from the source that is used in the article: Cardiff University historian Jan Bondeson. Listen are you positive you are able to read and understand English, and work with the sources?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bondeson is not a historian, he's a rheumatologist. Do you dispute this fact? Also, "The Sun" is generally considered completely unreliable by researchers (it probably has the worst reputation for accuracy of any british paper -- either it or the Daily Mail).Westbankfainting (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "historian" should not be picked up from poor quality newspapers, it should be obtained by investigation of the best sources. Cardiff U has a very brief bio describing Bonden as a clinical senior lecturer in medicine, part of the rheumatology section. At best he's a lay historian, not a scholarly historian. To describe his extra-curricular activities, he'd be called a writer of history, not a historian. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that "historian" should be included. I am saying that "rheumatologist" should be excluded because it is wp:or. How much clearer could I say it?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's important to establish the fact that Bondeson's book is not a scholarly work, that he is a senior lecturer in medicine, specifically rheumatology, and that the book is a work of popular non-fiction, not peer-reviewed. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, have you even read the book you're using as the sole source for this article? As I've already said on my talkpage, Bondeson's (presumably self-penned, or at least approved) biography on the first page of the thing reads "Jan Bondeson is a senior lecturer and consultant rheumatologist at Cardiff University", with no mention of any other job. This book, as with all his non-medical works, is a piece of non-peer-reviewed amateur history by someone with no reputation or qualifications in the field, and who has a well-deserved reputation for grossly misrepresenting sources to promote his pet theories (here's a concrete example of Bondeson openly fabricating a source to support one of his pet theories in one of his earlier works: compare the "poem from old charity documents" he quotes here as proof that the Biddenden Maids legend of Kent is an old legend and not a recent invention, with the actual source of the poem, an 1805 description of Melrose Abbey by Sir Walter Scott). In this particular case, we're being asked to believe that an amateur historian has uncovered a military program which has gone unnoticed by historians for over 70 years despite being spectacularly media-friendly and having purportedly taken place in what is probably the most researched and documented period in the whole of military history. – iridescent 14:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Iridescent, your comment is more than disappointing especially coming from an administrator!

I have not read the book.

I do not use the book as a source neither as "a sole source" nor as a source at all.

I use 6 reliable sources about the book, not the book itself, and I could have used at least dozen more RS for writing this article.

The question posted in this thread is not about reliability of the author, it is only about adding his occupation to the article. His occupation is not mentioned in any used sources, so adding this to the article is wp:or.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I find Iridescent's comments very apropos, not at all original research. Bondeson's credentials are part of the normal encyclopedic information we would always include if available. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bondeson is indisputably a historian. He has written umpteen books on history which were published by a mainstream press. His books are well respected, and he is considered an authority on the topics he has written about, which often overlap his knowledge as a doctor. He is not just up and writing about history he doesn't know anything about, he meticulously researches the topics. There are published reliable sources referring to him as a historian. There are no reliable sources disputing that he is a historian. He may *also* be a doctor, but he is clearly a historian. Saying he is not a historian without sources to back that position up is a violation of WP:OR, and because those edits are being done to try to discredit him (as shown clearly in edit comments above), it is also a violation of WP:NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

He's a history writer, not a historian with scholarly credentials. For instance, he is not a history professor, nor degreed in history. He is instead a history enthusiast who writes popular history books – a history writer. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Increasingly concerned this article misrepresents bondeson's book

Whatever Bondeson's credentials, i think the central claim of this article (that upon "Hitler's orders" superdog members of the SS were being sought), founded solely on a book by Bondeson that none of us has read, is probably false. In this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13568270 Bondeson complains "A rise in schools of animal psychology in the 1930s was encouraged by the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, and their potential military use examined. But that's a million miles away from the press claims - which get taller by the day - that the Nazis had a legion of talking, machine-gun-toting hounds, on the point of being unleashed on the allies." At any rate, I'm not sure any of this article should be taken seriously until someone actually reads the book (the only source for the material) rather than second hand, apparent misreadings (according to Bondeson in the BBC article) by the likes of The Sun. Do wikipedia articles about books get routinely written without the book having been read?Westbankfainting (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Title

Since there never were any "talking dogs" (Bondeson in the BBC article says that any evidence of dogs making progress was likely due to the Clever Hans effect) perhaps a title like Talking Dog Research in Nazi Germany would be better?Westbankfainting (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

German sources

Articles have begun to appear in German in response to the British newspaper coverage. It was Leutenberg; the school was set up in 1930 by Margarethe Schmidt (whose nephew says emphatically that it was not a Nazi programme and is concerned his now deceased aunt may be being misrepresented in the newspapers) - article dated 28 May here. A follow-up article dated 31 May here has detailed memories from a man who saw the dogs and was sceptical about the talking because he had worked in a circus (presumably a reference to the Clever Hans effect) - he also said the attempt to get them to talk didn't work. This article says categorically that the claims of an intention to use the dogs for military purposes are being met with astonishment by the locals.

If you can't read German and use a translation programme, beware of the use of the subjunctive to indicate "It is claimed that"; if you search on Leutenburg you will also find flat-out Google translated versions of an English-language article, being disseminated by a German instant-news service.

Those 2 articles - and possibly other stuff out there - provide info on the foundation of the school, the building it was in, etc., which could be used to broaden the basis of the article so it's not all about what the book says. But I'm afraid the Germans are heavily denying the Nazi programme angle. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a nice detailed article on the book, including quotations from an interview directly with the author, in Süddeutsche Zeitung, a rock-solid German source. It rolls its eyes at the English newspaper headlines and reports, but does say that according to the author, Hitler was eager to use the school for military purposes. By the way, I don't know where "near Hanover" comes from - Leutenberg isn't, and it was definitely Leutenberg (SZ article can be used to corroborate that). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bondeson's story appears to bevery poorly researched. From the beginning, the local newspapers in Leutenberg (three newspapers belonging to [[WAZ-Mediengruppe], with a lot of identical content and a total print run of >300,000) knew what these reports were referring to, but were very sceptical about many of the claims. After further research they could prove that much of the story is wrong. Here is what they printed:

Saturday 28 May under Politics

Hunde-Grete aus Leutenberg macht Karriere in England

England career of Dog-Grete from Leutenberg

Locals remember Margarethe Schmidt, known as "Hunde-Grete" (Dog-Grete). She was the daughter of a local industrial, a wacky spinster who lived in a villa with her mother. In 1930 she opened an animal talking school in the villa. A 1943 photo in a publication called the "German Slaughterhouse Newspaper" shows her with 6 Great Danes. After the war she had to give shelter to more and more displaced persons, closed the school and moved to West Berlin. (Leutenburg was in the Soviet-occupied zone, later East Germany.)

According to advertising for the school, the 'world famous' dogs could talk, calculate and spell, and knew the time. A boy who spent some time in the village wrote enthusiastically about the school in a letter to his mother.

According to Margarethe Schmidt's nephew Horst Schmidt (of Düsseldorf), the family had nothing to do with Nazis other than the Nazi Party membership of Margarethe Schmidt's father. (Which was essentially obligatory for him as a factory director.) He said he was considering a libel suit.

Saturday 28 May under Country and People

In Leutenberger Tierschule sollen Hunde sprechen gelernt haben

Dogs supposedly learned talking in Leutenberg animal school

(Variant of previous article)

Tuesday 31 May under Country and People

Augenzeuge hegt Zweifel an sprechenden Hunden in Leutenberg

Eyewitness doubts talking dogs in Leutenberg

Werner Dietzel remembers Margarethe Schmidt under the name "Hunde-Schmidten" ("Dog-Schmidt"). She used to give performances in local pubs and halls, but was not very convincing. She blamed the dogs' failure to actually talk on the cold. In his opinion she would not have been allowed to continue the performances after the war if there had been a Nazi connection.

Saturday 4 June under Country and People

Die Hundeflüsterer von Leutenberg

The dog whisperers of Leutenberg

Karl Schmidt (of Leutenberg) remembers that the village could have been considered a Nazi stronghold in that 3 of the roughly 2000 inhabitants were awarded the Nazi Party's gold medal.

Ruth Seyfarth says that as a 13-year-old she used to walk Margarethe Schmidt's 5 Danes, under Schmidt's constant supervision. There were 4 male Danes, (Ahoi, Akme, Ariberth and Alomar) and a bitch (Agilia), all from the same litter. The school was named after their mother, Asra. Later there was also a terrier. Seyfarth said that Schmidt was an artist performer, not a Nazi, and that she used to complain about harassment by the (Nazi) authorities. As proof she shows a May 1943 postcard from Schmidt to Seyfarth, showing 6 dogs and a little boy. In it she says that she is getting no more food for her dogs because she isn't breeding, the training is of no scientific interest, and she is not paying tax. Seyfarth confirms that the dogs' accomplishments were mostly show and explains how the calculation trick worked. The performances were the only source of income for Schmidt, her mother and the dogs, who were also growing vegetables in their garden. In case of a libel suit, Seyfarth would like to act as a witness.

Tuesday 7 June under Altenburg

Die Hundeflüsterer

The dog whisperer

(Variant of previous article)

Hans Adler 18:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I feel bad about this article and am tempted to just rewrite it and move it to the actual name of the establishment, with a section on the book and the splash it made in the press. It's not a BLP concern - the guy's aunt is dead - or I would have done so already. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A minor correction to what I wrote above: To judge from this article (which we are already citing), the fault is probably not Bondeson's but that of the British press, which have once again proved that they could not be less interested in getting this type of story right, but are only interested in the entertainment value. Hans Adler 21:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten and moved

I have gone ahead and rewritten the article and moved it to the name of the school. I'll add more German sources - and information from them - after a night's sleep. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Reporting the rewrite as done; I found an additional source in the article on Rolf. And I should note that I did read Bondeson's book, and had it in front of me as I rewrote the article, so as not to misrepresent it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Bondeson from lede

In this edit, Dan Murphy removed the mention of Bondeson's book and the press fun and games from the lede. I don't understand the edit summary, "so much stuff", and it was Bondeson's book and the publicity of this story within it that made the school notable, so for good or ill I believe we have to cover that in the lede. I've belatedly reverted that edit. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for discussion of this point - as I said, for good or ill the school became notable as a result of the press coverage arising from Bondeson's book - and in the meantime I have responded to Dan Murphy's subsequent set of edits by reinstating material, reverting changes from neutral verbs like "said" to POV terms like "claimed" and "spectacular", but further reducing the coverage of Bondeson - including slightly reducing the disputed bit in the lede when I reinstated it the second time. I do not agree that we should avoid mentioning Bondeson, or imply that his work is bad, but having originally rewritten this article to get it away from being substantially about Bondeson's book, I can see the argument for further reduction and have cut accordingly. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)