Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources

Guideline Discussion

(Add your thoughts and topics for discussion below for Project Dog proposed guidelines.)

• There is a site Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders Inc which discusses some of the concerns mentioned here, but does not cover breeds of dogs. Australia has had ongoing debate over "pit bulls", which seems directly relevant to that breed and its definition; they are supposedly banned but I see them around. More tricky is finding an agency that concerns itself with defining breeds in Australia, one source of data is declarations on rental contracts for homes. I wonder whether the insurance industry concerns themselves with breeds, or how a court defines a pitbull or other breed, because where a definition intersects with legal or financial concerns is where I would look for meaningful descriptions. I'll keep thinking about it, but can I suggest that a biological definition at the outset to frame how subjective this sort of categorisation is. ~ cygnis insignis 06:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, Cygnis insignis - there are many such groups, not unlike groups of homeowners with a mix of pro-real estate brokers and insurance agents who create a website and provide information about purchasing the right home, choosing a neighborhood, etc. I'm sure some pet owners will find it useful but we are still obligated to follow GNG and/or N. We should also be careful about how we present advocacy and/or lobby groups and remember to strictly adhere to our 3 core content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. As a side, when researching such groups, it is actually helpful to see what other groups and consumers have to say about them - (Change.org is blacklisted from WP). I also found Responsible Pet Breeders of Australia which appears to be a twin organization - same style of website, similar name - but I did not follow up with research. Regardless, we need to stay focused on the long-established, reputable breed registries and notable groups that are credited as having established a recognized breed, otherwise we are treading into fringe territory and poorly sourced material. In fact, I just responded to an editor about something similar on our project page. Happy editing!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Good comments. I'll will keep looking at this topic from the outside, before I look out how existing guidelines are applied to content here. There is obviously good motives to be sceptical about new 'breeds', as you point out, although introducing terms like 'puppy mills' may not be helpful in this guideline. ~ cygnis insignis 23:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

More about RS

I support using "official" long-established, reputable dog breed registries - they qualify as RS (despite the issues with some of their breed standards) as do the books/magazines they publish. The confusion arises when there is an unrecognized breed and/or breed in development for recognition by one of the reputable registries. There are multiple clickbait sites that publish anything and everything, 3rd party fly-by-night dog registries that will register anything and everything, and so-called "dog encyclopedias" such as Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds online, and the books by D. Caroline Coile, PhD. Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds, and websites maintained by (apparently) reputable breed clubs like ABBA which comprises responsible breeders who are actually working to preserve/improve/keep records to establish/re-establish a breed they are developing and promoting through their own proprietary registry. In fact, the breed clubs provide all the documentation (ancestry and lineage) to the notable registries. AKC has a Foundation Stock Service Program for just that purpose.

Aside from or in addition to organized record keeping and in the absence of purebred breed registry recognition, we have:

1. - a dog breed book written by a respected author/publisher (Dorling Kindersley) called "The Complete Dog Breed Book" which includes a paragraph/chapter about all the recognized breeds and multiple unrecognized breeds, and...
2. - RS/N indicates that the book The Bully Breeds by David A. Harris (Kennel Club Books) is a RS because Harris qualifies as an expert.
3. - the encyclopedias I mentioned above
4. - Breeds of dogs - UNT Digital Library - book published by US Dept of Agriculture
5. - the American Rare Breed Association (ARBA) - questionable at best
6. - Business Insider recommendations - see #7 - ??
7. - Just Dog Breeds - still checking this one - they say "a complete list of all 164 dog breed profiles on the site", whatever that means.
8. - Canine Information Library - highly questionable
9. - Everything you need to know about the Westminster Dog Show I don't know that we can completely disregard the Westminster Kennel Club's Dog Show. They have a breed finder on their website: [1] for example: [2], and each breed has a description. Also though, it is now the longest continuously running American sporting event, second only to the Kentucky Derby, according to the article. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
10. - more to come... - feel free to add to this list. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you link to where the established registries you write about actually show which breeds they recognize and don't? Do they keep lists that we can look at? --GRuban (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

These pages move around, like everything on the web. Breeds lists (which branch to breed summaries and breed standards) are a common feature at all such organizations' sites, though. We regularly link to the breed standards in the breed articles, but there's a fair amount of link-rot, and keeping those links up-to-date can be a challenge. Linking to the organziations' lists here might or might not help with that; depends on whether those links are kept current more frequently that the ones in the articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see ARBA listed above; I was going to specifically recommend including them. They are not a reliable source that anything is a breed, in any meaningful sense. The entire purpose of the registry is to help people making dubious "I've started a new breed" claims to look more official so they can sell more dogs. See also the documentation of Template:Infobox dog breed in which I've listed various rather reputable organizations and a bunch that are generally regarded as "puppy mills".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft breeds notability guideline

WP:Notability (breeds) has been a draft guideline for some time. Some of the material in this page can probably be used to improve the dogs section at it. At very least, I would like to see the pages be mutually consistent with each other. Having wikiproject-hosted supplement pages that drill down into more detail, however, is a good idea. I think the current draft guideline could get unwieldy if it keeps going into the details of exactly which organizations are and are not likely to indicate notability, and other such specifics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish - perform your magic. I also just made a suggestion on Talk:WikiProject Dogs regarding a question by Cavalryman and that long list of non-notable designer breeds (or crossbreeds) that cite no reliable sources because there simply aren't any, at least none that I can find. Your input is welcome there, too. Maybe we should create a list of all the popular designer breeds and include a verifiable registry column (or the like) to indicate if such a registry exists? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Objectives of this Project page

Hello all, I have helped to clarify the objectives. Please take a look and amend/comment as necessary. Once we are all clear on what we are attempting to do here, the rest should roll out underneath. William Harristalk 23:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful...thank you, WH. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

These were your words, I simply re-structured them. William Harristalk 10:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Added list of resources

See this resource on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources. It should prove helpful. Atsme 💬 📧 19:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Atsme, I have had a look at that sheet and have added a clarifying note. Further, I have relocated it to the sources section. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please list the sources you consider unreliable & provide a brief explanation as to why. After reviewing the sources, I saw no major concerns. When choosing sources, our team members understand WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:RS/AC and WP:UBO. I felt quite confident in sharing that list with the project, especially considering it was purposed by academia for academia by the Sr. Extension Associate in the Department of Animal Science at Cornell University. It's quite possible that I may have overlooked something, and that a better option would be to create our own list by choosing sources from the Cornell list that we can all agree upon. I look forward to your reply. Atsme 💬 📧 02:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, there is a thumping great disclaimer at the top of the document stating the author in no way endorses any of the websites listed, so let's no overstate this as sources from the Cornell. And an example .. the very first link is to a private company that sells agility equipment, this page claims this product of theirs (that you can buy for just $209 US) is Used in K9 police dog training, the company's website is not a reliable source for that comment.

Yes the regular contributors to this project are generally good at discriminating between what sources are reliable and what are not, but this page may be viewed by new editors who could assume these links are all reliable, they clearly are not. Cavalryman (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC).

"Thumping great disclaimer"?? Did you read the title of that paper? Dog Related Websites and Recommended Resources from A to Z That means they're recommended - not endorsed. In fact, people get paid for endorsements but not recommendations - there's a big difference between the two. The actual disclaimer states: No endorsement is intended nor implied by listing websites here. They are grouped by topic and compiled for your information. All links were functional as of March, 2018 using Firefox. The intent is to share resources related to Dogs. Of course a university is not going to endorse a business for purchases, and no one in their right mind would endorse a website knowing how easily material can change or get hacked. For our purposes, if an editor is writing an article about dog equipment, why not check sources on a recommended list provided and compiled by the Sr. Extension Associate, Department of Animal Science, Cornell University? I'm having growing concerns over how you have been interpreting things. There have been several instances of misinterpretations on your part, and I'm quite concerned that you have adopted this WP:OWN attitude, and have reverted material that I've been adding based on your own misinterpretations. We're supposed to be a team here, but you have not been acting like a team member. Atsme 💬 📧 04:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, can you discriminate between what is just "Dog Related" and what is "Recommended"? And re your comment about WP:OWNership, I would urge you to reflect on your own conduct over the last fortnight. Yes until recently I thought we were a team (and friends), but for whatever reason you seem to be trying to torch that, it is very disappointing. Cavalryman (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC).

extremely biased

https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php

Dogsbite is a reliable source that has been cited in academic articles and news. Wikipedia needs to step up and ban the editors that are deliberately removing any information that negatively characterizes pitbulls. 69.9.134.186 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)