|
The objectives for establishing a guideline and a list of reliable sources for WP:WikiProject Dogs are to:
- identify reliable sources as opposed to unreliable or questionable sources - including but not limited to - clickbait and promotional sites, puppymills, and scam sites;
- establish minimum standards and provide clarity when defining a purebred dog breed as opposed to a dog type or a non-notable, unverifiable dog crossbreed;
- identify the recognized, reputable dog registries and kennel clubs which are working to develop or preserve a particular dog breed, as opposed to the for-profit, questionable registries or promotional dog breeder, puppy mill, or clickbait websites;
- identify questionable "designer" dog breeds and "rare" dog breeds being included as standalone articles on Wikipedia in order to legitimize and promote these for commercial gain.
Establishing notability[edit]A dog breed, dog type or dog crossbreed is presumed to be notable if:[a]
- Kennel clubs are generally considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations, member clubs, and information about themselves such as the conditions of accepting a breed into their registry.
- Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but corroboration by secondary sources is encouraged.
- Sources should be considered reliable. If in doubt, seek consensus.
WP:REPUTABLE advises that "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." This implies that if a source does not meet these two criteria then it fails the reputable test under WP:RELIABLE. Therefore, websites where content is provided without an author given fails the reputable test. Books written by an author who cannot show expertise in the field of their subject fails the reputable test (e.g. a photo-book compiled by a professional photographer who publishes on a number of different topics).
In addition to the above links, there is a Book Talk article that may prove useful: "The Most Feared Dogs May Also Be the Most Misunderstood", below the title it reads Many countries ban pit bulls as a dangerous breed but “there’s no science that bears that idea out,” says this author. Nat Geo. A particular quote by the author warrants consideration:
"But in the 1970s, there was this well-intentioned move by the humane movement to stamp out what was left of illegal dog fighting. In order to do that, they partnered with the media to put dog fighting on the front page of every newspaper in America. In doing so, they encouraged wild speculations about these dogs that were not based in science or historical fact—things like they have 5,000 pounds of jaw pressure. And the more terrified everyone became, the more people who probably should not have had these dogs, wanted them.
It is true that a century ago, there were bulldog x terrier crosses that were bred/developed specifically for pit fighting but that all changed when blood sports were outlawed. Modern dogs were developed with more focus on conformation, and with a different function from the way the respective breeds were used historically; they have not maintained their century-old heritage. Unfortunately, many are still misidentified as pit bull types for no other reason than looks. There are clandestine markets for fighting dogs - crime does exist - but if discovered, responsible breeders and breed registries take proper action against them, including banning those who are members and filing police reports on anyone who is engaged in such activity.
See WP:RS as it explains judging reliability based on "context", and also see WP:Notability (web).
Potentially useful resources[edit]Unreliable or questionable sources[edit]
- 101dogbreeds.com [6]
- allthingsdogs.com [7]
- American Research Foundation (ARF)[1][b] [8]
- bulldoginformation.com [9]
- canna-pet.com [10]
- completedogsguide.com [11]
- designerdoginfo.wordpress.com [12]
- dogable.net [13]
- dogappy.com [14]
- dogbreedinfo.com [15]
- dogbreedplus.com [16]
- dogdisease.info [17]
- doggiedesigner.com [18]
- dogpage.us [19]
- dogs.petbreeds.com [20]
- dogsbite.org" [21]
- dogster.com [22]
- dogtime.com [23]
- dogzone.com [24]
- iams.com [25]
- k9rl.com [26]
- leashesandlovers.com [27]
- mastiffdogssite.com [28]
- mixbreeddog.com [29]
- pawculture.com [30]
- perfectdogbreeds.com [31]
- petguide.com [32]
- petpremium.com [33]
- pets4homes.co.uk [34]
- puppiesclub.com [35]
- puppiesndogs.com [36]
- puppy-basics.com [37]
- puppydogweb.com [38]
- retrieverbud.com [39]
- scamperingpaws.com [40]
- sittersforcritters.com [41]
- teacupdogdaily.com [42]
- thedogsjournal.com [43]
- thegoodypet.com [44]
- thegoldensclub.com [45]
- thehappypuppysite.com [46]
- thelabradorsite.com [47]
- topdogtips.com [48]
- vetstreet.com [49]
- yourpurebredpuppy.com [50]
- ^ WP:GNG "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] There is also somewhat of a correlation, perhaps arguably so, with reference to WP:FRINGE, and WP:PROMO #5 as it applies to designer breeds and getting an article published in WP to lend encyclopedic credibility to mixed breeds that are (1) on the fringe of mainstream, (2) primarily marketed/sold/misrepresented by puppy mills and pods of backyard breeders, (3) not recognized by any of the long established, reputable purebred registries, or their FSS or (4) verifiably the offspring of purebreds with documented parentage which makes them dependent on anecdotal information and visual identification – if it looks like a Multipoo, it must be a Multipoo, the seller told me so. With the latter in mind, see the article in the Chicago Tribune and some of the high quality RS about misidentifying dog breeds below.
- ^ "American Research Foundation", initially established by an individual who capitalized on crossbreeds that long-established breed registries do not recognize because they failed necessary breed standard requirements for recognition. There is no verification available without having to do OR. Further, this registry received numerous complaints and is out of business. For verification see included references: Rip Off Report[2] Big Paws Only Blog[3] See comments wherein NLDA states on July 24, 2017: "Hi Lolly, unfortunately we have not had any correspondence with ARF. I would also love to know who has the old records. All of my leads have gone cold." Working Lacys[4] no verifiability.
|
