This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
Too pro-schnoodle: neither dogs in general nor schnoodles are universaly loved, surely. If they were, this artical would be fair. Pelegius20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To assign this article "NPOV" dispute is, to me, almost comical. NPOV articles are articles on "abortion" or "George Bush" or "Southern Baptists", not a dang informative article on dogs. (Please note, POV disputer, that "article" is spelled a-r-t-i-c-l-e by the way).
It is the nature of articles on dogs and dog breeds that the article have the casual, banter-like, style that you see with the three or four of us who have contributed to this article giving our assessment of why most people who own schnoodles are satisfied with them. I find the text of the article to be completely relevant (the person punching up this article is almost certainly considering a schnoodle or other mixed breed), and I do not think that the positive qualities of schnoodles are really in dispute, nor are they even "opinions", especially as phrased here.
I do not think any reasonable person would conclude that this article, considered in its natural matrix and obvious intent, is "biased". But, let's assume it is, for the sake of your argument. What changes or type of changes would satisfy you? Shall we add the statement: "Like most dogs, the schnoodle can occasionally go poo-poo on the floor, so the dog, while hypo-allergenic, is not poo-poo-free."
I am sorry to be taking this tone with you, but this is really absurd.
The recent reversions, editings, and general dumbings-down of this article in the past two weeks for the sake of the one silly complainer have now rendered it to "piece of crap" status to my disciplined eye. What was once a thorough, casual, and fun article on schnoodles is now a humorless, minimalistic, junk heap that's about as useful as a second anus.
So there you have it. I wash my hands of any further discussion or contribution to the article.
Please provide sources for all "citation needed" tagged passages or they will be stripped from the article shortly. Alvis05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the descriptions of a schnoodle in this article are not characteristic of the schnoodle by ANY means. I breed schnoodles and have never come across a territorial schnoodle. They are loving and gentle - never distrusting of other dogs. Whoever wrote this clearly has no idea what they're talking about.
I own a Schnoodle and it's the exact opposite. Loves people, hates other dogs. Regardless, if you have an issue with the article simply edit it. Also, if you're going to talk on the this page please sign your posts. 67.82.83.7414:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "Notability" section for several reasons:
It is uncited
Simply being owned by a celebrity does not convey an object's "notability."
Structurally, there is no particular precedent (at least in Good Articles/Featured Articles) for such a superfluous section; it is essentially trivia.
Overall, the "Notability" of a topic should be summarized in the lead and substantiated throughout the article through citations to reliable third-party sources.
Penguin60561 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)The introduction to the article sounds incomplete, I think there should be more. The weight of the dogs are also questionable ending with something not divisible by five. I also feel that there should be more references than just four. This article could be better, it just needs some more information.[reply]
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}