Talk:Pumi dog

Plurals?

Firstly, these dogs are the cutest thing ever. Secondly, it looks like for this dog, and its relative, the Puli, the AKC is using the Hungarian plural, Pumik and Pulik. Should this page reflect this pluralization or should we keep it as it is presently, using the English language plural of Pumis?

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehgarrick (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I notice that the American breed club tends to use 'Pumik', the UK club tends to use 'Pumis', as do most English language website articles, in all countries. The WP Puli article uses both styles. For the time being I have stuck with 'Pumis', which seems to be the most common usage outside Hungary. MapReader (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Campine (chicken) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.k9magazine.com/history-pumi-dog/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jack Frost (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This material had been on the page since December 2015 (with citation from April 2016), and since this was flagged just now I have copy edited the relevant paragraphs and restored the deleted information, re-written and supported by citation. MapReader (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Terrier blood?

I have been working to improve this article, and wanted to flag one potential controversy arising from the citations, which is whether or not the Pumi breed actually has terrier blood, as distinct from simply some terrier-like characteristics. The earlier version of the article stated categorically that it does not, but the only citation I could find to support this was a quote from a contemporary member of the American breed club, with nothing from history or science to back it up. Whereas a number of citations including some from Hungary suggest that cross-breeding with terriers is likely to have taken place. The truth may be that we will never know (without rigorous DNA analysis?), but for the revised text I have gone with the balance of citations that indicate probable cross-breeding with some terriers, along with various sheepdogs, in the 17th-18th centuries. MapReader (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we can treat this as confirmed; the summary published by the UK Kennel Club appears definitive. MapReader (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

DNA analysis shows that the Pumi breed has been crossed with the Puli (extensively, and the Puli with the Pumi), the German Shepherd, and the Dobermann. The Dobermann article tells me that it is thought to include a number of breeds, but documented is the Greyhound and Manchester Terrier. That may be your terrier! William Harris • (talk) • 13:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

History

Hello User:MapReader, we meet here once again. Regarding the text "The ancestral Hungarian herding dog appears to have migrated with the Magyars and their livestock from the Ural-Altay region, between China and the Caspian Sea, to the Carpathian Basin around 800 AD, writes Meir Ben-Dror." This person is a board member of the [Hungarian Pumi Club of America], and therefore is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source.

Regarding "This dog most likely can be traced back to the Tibetan herding/guard dogs (Tsang Apso, mistakenly called terriers by Europeans) originated from China and Tibet and were widespread among various tribes in the region." Who has done the tracing? Do you believe that "most likely" is evidence strong enough to be included in an encyclopedia (is the editor of K9 magazine a dog historian?)

Yes, the material is cited, but I question the value of a no-author-given piece of writing in a dog magazine that has no references. And on this basis, we appear to be happy stating that this dog originates from China and Tibet? William Harris (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The more relevant point, in line with the usual WP policy on citations, is that this is a published article, by the above named person, in a canine magazine with reasonable circulation. The question is whether the magazine itself can be regarded as a reliable source. MapReader (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. William Harris (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding removal of content.

@MapReader If you have an issue with anything I've removed discuss it here - where I will explain my rational for all of my changes.

For litter size and life span: neither source (dogsbreedlist.info and petguide.com) meet WP:RS, other editors have identified these sources as unreliable and to avoid/remove them.

For coat maintenance I recommend you to look at WP:NOTAGUIDEBOOK

I removed the kennel club behavioural claim as they are not WP:INDEPENDENT the second paragraph is generic and can be applied to any dog breed, plus it's not reliable.

All of the health section fails WP:MEDRS. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The correct approach is to tag the sentences you feel are insufficiently cited, and wait to see if they can be better evidenced, before deleting long standing and stable content. MapReader (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That's idiotic - the claim has already stood for long, it should've been reliably sourced to begin with. It's long standing and stable because the article has had little attention, long standing isn't a justification to keep content that isn't reliably sourced.

The non-medical content was all guidebook material which isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia to begin with.

All you are doing is retarding the removal of content that does not belong and will inevitably get removed even if this has to be escalated to bring in other editors. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not at all; content that is long-standing isn’t urgent for removal. That’s why we have the ‘citation needed’ and other tags and, yes, other editors’ views are needed. MapReader (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not when the content violates general guidelines like WP:NOTAGUIDEBOOK and WP:MEDRS. The content should've been reverted upon insertion, the fact it isn't justification to keep it.

You added content that goes against policy and no one reverted it back then, now you're trying to use the fact that it was overlooked to justify keeping it. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The content is probably long standing because you re-add the content.

You have been editing for 12 years, you have 25,000+ edits, did you not understand what reliable sources were when you added the content? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

For non-BLP content you are able to tag material that you think is insufficiently cited, helping others to improve the article. Or you can work to find better sources, or adapt the content to deal with anything obviously incorrect. Simply trashing very large parts of an article without any consensus isn’t acceptable. MapReader (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I did look to find reliable health sources for the breed: I found nothing which is likely due to the rarity of the breed.

You can't just add unreliably sourced content in lieu of there being a reliable source for the claim, not every breed is going to be able to have a well detailed and written health section. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

These aren’t additions, it’s long-standing content that you, as a single editor, are repeatedly deleting without consensus. MapReader (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

They were additions when you add them, unreliably sourced additions for medical claims. Neglect of an article isn't justification to keep the content.

You've yet to actually comment on the content itself: do you think it meets reliability? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Citations from the kennel club are certainly authoritative, and deleting that content without any support let alone consensus, is effectively vandalism. As a new editor yourself, do read up on the best way to improve articles, working with other editors. MapReader (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Citations from the kennel club fail WP:MEDRS 'must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources', they fail WP:RS in this context 'Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.', they fail WP:INDEPENDENT as they have an incentive to promote the breed as healthy.

The only thing kennel club citations are authoritative on is appearance/breed standard as that is something they control: they don't control the health of the breed.

But surely you know all this already? You are just using procedure to retard removal of content that never should have been added. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This site doesn't work on the basis that a single editor without any consensus whatsover just bulldozes significant changes to an article by edit-warring, after they have been reverted. That is simply disruptive editing. The guidelines to which you refer are just that - guidelines, not rules - and only direct toward immediate removal of cited material where there are BLP concerns, where the material is offensive or plainly untrue, or where the citation comes from a listed deprecated source, none of which applies in this case. MapReader (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The site also doesn't work on the basis that you can add unreliable information and then keep it in the article by accusing people of 'bulldozing'.

The guidelines support removing the content, nothing in the guidelines support retaining the content. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's clear you simply revert anyone's change that you disagree with as if you WP:OWN the article despite those changes being in accordance with guidelines.

You even reverted someone removing deprecated infobox parameters... Traumnovelle (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No information has been "added" recently; the content within the article is years old, and you simply can't expect to delete large amounts of it wholesale, when you have no consensus. MapReader (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You never got consensus to add content that violates the guidelines.

If this went to an actual consensus discussion would you support or oppose the removal of the content? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That the article has been stable for years indicates consensus for the status quo. You need to propose changes on the talk page individually for discussion, rather than trying to edit war changes through en masse. I see from your contribution history that you have taken the same approach in many other articles, many relating to dogs, and encountered similar challenges to your approach. If you aren't able to edit collaboratively, some guidance from ANI may well be appropriate as your approach to editing seems unreasonably confrontational. MapReader (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It indicates no one has bothered to review it.

You haven't said why you support keeping the content other than the whole 'consensus', but consensus requires actual reasoning and not just a yes or no vote. There is no guideline about keeping content simply because it's old. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've also never had any other editor try to keep content in violation of guidelines after I've removed it: you're the only one who has taken issue. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to state it.

If you want consensus you need to actually engage. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the content is now adequately cited; had you bothered to review the citations rather than merely deleting them, you would have found links to the original sources. MapReader (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The only WP:MEDRS is WebMD and even that is dubious/questionable.

I'm not sure why you think petguide.com, kennel clubs, and a commercial testing site are reliable citations for medical claims. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Petguide isn’t doing any lifting now, and I have deleted it. The kennel clubs are reasonable sources for general information about dog breeds, since they define them in the first place. MapReader (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

They're reasonable sources for general information, not for health claims. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've started a new section to discuss this. Please add your comment and summary in below mine (not as a reply) and once done I'll make a post on Wikiproject Dogs requesting other editors to contribute. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Dispute with content in article.

I take issue with the second paragraph of the description section, specifically the content sourced to www.aboquadogs.com and http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dogs/dogs-that-do-not-shed.aspx - neither source is reliable the former is just some breeder's personal website and the latter is possibly user generated? If it's not user generated it has seemingly no editorial oversight.

I also take issue with the temperament section, specifically the first paragraph and the second referenced section of the second. Both sources used petwave.com and the Kennel Club breed standard aren't reliable in this instance. Petwave itself is a completely unreliable source and the Kennel Club is a primary source with obvious bias. The claim 'never aggressive or overly shy' is absurd: a dog of any breed is capable of aggression.

As for health claims any breed club cannot be a reliable source as they are biased and a primary source; there is no oversight process for their information and no way to know if it's truthful or not. Furthermore the UK kennel club data relies on breeders/owners actually reporting data, a breeder may simply choose to not report a negative result - the German Shepherd Dog breed club for example doesn't participate in these screenings and questionnaires to avoid scrutiny. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)