Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:31, 14 August 2011

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

AFD Goldador

The symbol I think you were looking for was ≠ (special characters > symbols). :) :) Keetanii (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I usually do that because in C-like programming languages, != signifies not equal to (more generally, ! negates something), which I'm more used to. Thanks for reminding me of that bar, I forgot about it. – anna 16:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, cool, I didn't know that! I couldn't program a bar of soap, so thats new information for me :) Keetanii (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fox Terrier

Hi there, I've addressed the points you raised in the GA review of the Fox Terrier article. Just finished replacing the Sarah's Dogs references and I'll avoid using them in future. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look as soon as I can. Anna 22:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Double checked the British/American spellings using the UK Spell Check on Microsoft Word and couldn't come up with anything. I've also added the British English template to the talk page so that it's set (although it's inevitable that someone will come along switch all the "s"'s for "z"'s, but we can at least point at the template and revert). Miyagawa (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Trigg Hound

On 17 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trigg Hound, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Trigg Hound, bred for hunting in Kentucky, was called "best" for big game hunting in Africa? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Treeing Tennessee Brindle

On 19 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Treeing Tennessee Brindle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the breed club of the Treeing Tennessee Brindle was founded in Illinois? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Too many photos

Heya Anna, If you have time, could you take a look at the Shetland Sheepdog page for me? There are far far too many photos, and I am having trouble deciding which ones should be edited out/moved. Generally I would like to see at least one good photo of each colour type, maybe sable, blue merle (the one in the info box), bi-coloured and Tricoloured? Anyway I thought I'd ask for some help, the page is starting to get me frustrated. In terms of moving them, I think I need some graphic design help, everything looks a bit like a dogs breakfast at the moment, haha! Cheers, --Keetanii (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just took a look -- you removed/replaced the worst of the images, I think. Personally, I'd remove File:Face of Shetland Sheepdog.jpg since it doesn't really add much to the article: there are other pictures that show the short fur on the face just as well. I'm not that fond of File:Shanti shetland sheepdog2.jpg either, but one could argue that it has educational value so I'd probably leave it. Hope that's helpful -- most of the current pics are useful to the reader, I think. As for rearranging, just let me know when you'd like me to take a look (if you'd like to remove any) and I can try to even them out. Good luck with the article! Anna 03:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anna, I had another go at editing some of them out, but I still cant make the page look even! I agree about the face of the Shetland Sheepdog image, most readers should be able to acertain form all the other images that the hair/fur on the shelties face is short unlike that of a Maltese for example. I think the more popular a breed of dog is, the more likely Misplaced Pages will have problems with people putting pictures of their pet on the relevant wikipedia page. Not that all pictures of peoples pets are bad, hopefully all the pictures used were somebodies pet! Anyway, yes if you could have a quick go at even-ing the images out for me, that would be great! Cheers, --Keetanii (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this sooner! Went and tried to balance everything, let me know what you think. It's okay on my screen (1440 x 900) but may look worse on others. Anna 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

King Shepherd References

Greetings Anna- I have noticed that the King Shepherd article has zero references and needs significant help to align it more closely to other dog articles on Misplaced Pages. As such, it is my intention to continue perusing for reliable sources to help improve this article. I will hopefully find some published articles, but because this dog breed is rare and relatively newly developed, I may not find many if I do. I must, though, respectfully disagree with you about dogbreedinfo not being a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. As described by Misplaced Pages, "You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorized web sites." Dogbreedinfo is not a banned web site for sourcing and has a clear author who is third party. While I agree that it is not the best and most reliable reference to use, it is none-the-less reliable as Dogbreedinfo is sited on many of Misplaced Pages's dog articles including; Tamaskan Dog, Native American Indian Dog, List of domesticated Scottish breeds, Bay dog, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, Moscow Water Dog, Mucuchies, Kuvasz, Indian Pariah Dog, and many more. As I mentioned, I will continue to look for better references, but in the meantime, I believe that dogbreedinfo is sufficient for the King Shepherd article. I hope you are well and thanks for taking those breeder websites off. That was going to be my next course of action. :) Cheers! Shepaluteprez (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"dominance theory" and you

How would you react to statements citing the following WP:RS? | http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/319.short — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs)

I'd say "Find something published reasonably recently -- that paper is 45 years old (and doesn't explicitly support the following) -- that states humans should dominate their dogs and carolina dogs are more "dominant" than average". That should be a study, in a peer-reviewed journal, that draws the same conclusion -- no Dog Whisperer. ;) What I've read doesn't explicitly support that conclusion -- wild or captive pack interactions are a bit different, as those studies do not typically involve humans when discussing results, so I'm not speaking about those as I don't think the topics are wholly related. This should be handled with finesse and neutrality in the pertinent articles -- dog, pack (canine), wolves as pets and working animals, etc. -- without definitively saying either is correct. Misplaced Pages isn't the place for advice nor synthesis of the literature. There's no need to put "dominate your dog" in every dog breed article (or wild dog article), as it's tantamount to putting "mixed breeds are healthier" into every designer dog article -- too much extrapolation involved, ignoring nuance and significant controversy -- and introduces unnecessary duplication to boot. I don't think you're suggesting that or citing Dog Whisperer, of course, but I've run into a fair number who would. And, in case it's unclear, personally I find "positive-only" training spurious and believe each quadrant should be used where appropriate. (That's if you're assuming I'm swallowing everything Karen Pryor or Ian Dunbar say -- simply a note to dispel any misconceptions) Anna 02:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have some time on my hands, so I've plugged some different terms in to see if I could find some studies I hadn't read that reached the conclusion above. Here are some studies that may be of interest (I only have access to the abstract for some of these, which is not desirable as we have to be careful not to infer too much from it, same as with any study). Most of these were not focused on that relationship but mentioned it briefly. I haven't located anything to indicate that a dominance hierarchy, if I presume one exists as described traditionally (which I'll do in this context), is more pronounced with the Carolina dog as you claimed.

• 1997: Abstract only.
• 1985: Focus of study was "dominance aggression", abstract only.
• 1997: Focus of study was "dominance aggression", abstract only.
• 2003: I have read this one in the past. It notes that there is a correlation between increased aggression and "decreased amenability" and dogs who initiate play, but did not ascribe dominance as necessarily the cause and provided several possible explanations. Conclusion is that play does not generally affect dominance and attachment measures -- interesting reading even if not directly related to the issue at hand.

Feel free to add more as you find them.

• As to the articles, I think there are two possibilities here. Either we accept that all breeds and types of dog have equal potential for "dominating their owner" -- if that's the case, it should be noted if not already in the dog article and kept out of individual breed articles as redundant. If the argument is that each breed differs in its average level of dominance, or something along those lines, then a reliable citation attributing cause to x behavior should be noted as well. Either way, I'm relatively confident that none of this belongs in the Carolina dog article. Cheers, Anna 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to know what you're saying about wolves not being hierarchical. Carolina Dogs and temperament sections and such are good topics, too, but right now I’m trying to feel out if you’ll not tolerate any depiction of canid social structure as hierarchical or of dominance and submission as established aspects of wolf nature, or if not where you are drawing the line. I accept that Mech, et. al, are right: most wolf packs are just families and so there isn't all that much vying for position and such as there are when unrelated individuals form packs, such as when an outsider wants to join or take over a pack, or in captivity, or artificial packs like the release of the Druids in Yellowstone, or when lone wolves pack up naturally in the wild. I get that, most wolf packs are just families and so there‘s not so much of that hierarchy-establishing or -enforcing behavior, as in a nuclear family that‘s established from the start and parents aren‘t often challenged for the top spot. But I want to know if you are not going to tolerate, on the basis of that, all the research about the typical postures and behaviors and rituals they go through, from subtle movements of the tail and head to full-on groveling and so on, to establish and maintain hierarchies or avoid violence, and if so, whether it might be important for me to try to convince you otherwise as I see that stuff as still perfectly valid and obviously true. I’m guessing you’ve seen it before and know what I‘m talking about. The ears flatten, they lower the head, a certain posture and movement, the tail tucks and so on, and the dominance complex of behaviors as well. All that, in your mind, has been proven wrong because we now know that most packs are families? Please agree that stuff is as valid as it ever was. Chrisrus (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say wolves were not hierarchical. I doubt I'd say something like that, at least, and I couldn't find where I said it here. I suspect you're misinterpreting what I'm saying or maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly. I've read the relevant literature and accept it; "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts". Granted, I think comparing dogs to wolves is of limited utility as they diverged thousands of years ago, and the numbers of studies analyzing domestic dog hierarchies are limited, but based on what I do know:

I understand that captive animals in particular -- dogs and wolves I'm far and away most familiar wit -- form packs. I definitely understand that there is body language related to that so I'm not sure where your second-to-last sentence comes from -- I don't think that's bunk. I simply think that issues with dominance that do arise are owing to valued resources. I do not believe explicitly asserting yourself as the alpha is necessary in the vast majority of cases -- and when it is, alpha rolling and other forceful measures can be dangerous for the owner. Here's something to chew on: only the insecure wolves, as I recall (correct if wrong), were constantly asserting themselves physically as a way to rise up the ranks. In established relationships there are no power struggles. I prefer NILIF if there really is an issue in most cases -- start at square one, dog gets nothing without working for it. Simpler, safer, and more based in what we know about behavior. And those who discuss it do not talk about asserting dominance, even if that's merely an issue of semantics. I disagree that pulling or not coming when called indicates anything else than a dog that hasn't been trained properly. I also disagree that restricting petting and sleeping spots is necessary unless there are issues popping up. Does that clarify my own perspective on dog behavior and training?

The papers I linked to on your talk page were asserting that, not that dogs were little hairy humans or there was absolutely no hierarchy. What I suspect happened: I wrote the following: "Neither of them mention anything about "asserting your sattus in the pack" or even a hierarchy-based relationship with humans." This was very poorly worded. The "or even" probably implied I didn't think that any dominance hierarchy existed. It was meant in a different way, as an extreme comparison: "That isn't even mentioned, so why would this be?" When I said that sources about this specific type of dog didn't mention "pack hierarchy with humans", I didn't mean to imply that absolutely none existed. It wasn't unusual or distinct enough for mentions in any real literature about them, so emphasis in the article was unnecessary. I think I was under the impression that we were speaking specifically and you thought my comments were more general. If I really had concerns with how this was handled in other articles I'd have fixed it or opened a discussion. Info in those articles is sourced well, handled with some care, so it stays without complaints (presumably).

I'm sure you know this but it's probably worth repeating: I removed the Carolina dog bit because it was sourced to Dog Breed Info. I've been aware of it for six or seven years and found some of its info questionable. And how was it obtaining it? After I joined Misplaced Pages in March, I was surprised to see it being used in so many articles so I took a closer look at its pages. I read the Bernese Mountain Dog page and was puzzled that a tirade about pack leadership took up half of the temperament section. "I understand that some trainers have different opinions, but for a breed so renowned for its gentle nature, this seems somewhat odd," I thought to myself. It was also littered with hyperlinks to some page that went more in depth about this writer's philosophy. OK. So I looked at some other random pages and they all said effectively the same thing. Whether Chinese Crested, Berner, or Italian Greyhound, they all mentioned this in a bit of detail. It's clear that the writer means to emphasize of this and I can respect that, but it's not an appropriate source for Misplaced Pages for other reasons. My edit summary was vague but I figured it wouldn't bother anyone since it was added by a random IP user and few I've talked to think Dog Breed Info is an entirely scrupulous source (I've gathered that you're not familiar with it, so I won't make that mistake again). I'll reply to your comments on the Carolina dog on your talk page -- sorry, this turned into a boring novella. :) Anna 00:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, ok, then, thanks. I think you have answered by original question: Would you disallow a statement based on an WP:RS like this one?: ? Mech et. al. have not shown that there is no hierarchy among wolves by proving that packs are usually quite peaceful families that tend to get along just fine, with less vying for position than one might have been thinking. Even though a wolf pack isn't normally one big struggle for dominance, papers like that one that detail what is known about the hierarchical social systems of wolves and dogs, all about how it works and in which the "body language" of dominance and submission is detailed and explained, that speak of an alpha and an omega and so on, all the details that are well known and not controversial, (at least as I see it) about the simple reality that wolves are a species born with certain behavioral predisposition to live in hierarchical systems, that all has not, as some claim, been "overthrown" or proven now to be, if not wrong, at least controversial. Mech et. al. findings that most packs are families is valid, and therefore there's not that much vying for rank, not this big drama of having to fight one's way to the top the way maybe some people used to think it was, but that those Mech findings don't contradict this | http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/319.short and others like it, as he and others seem to claim.

I should explain why I asked. I got the impression that you believed that it is wrong or at least controversial to say that wolf packs are hierarchical, and that dominance and submission are not innate behaviors of wolves, yadda yadda, from your first edit summary explaining the reason for your recent edit at Carolina Dog, and then from the papers you posted on my page which said some things that you seemed to agree with, that maybe wolves aren't hierarchical, that dominance and submission are not innate behaviors of wolves, part of the very nature of a wolf, but merely the result of the fact that previous studies saying so having been made on captive packs and therefore all the dominance and submission and hierarchy seen there are just an unnatural result of being raised in captivity, as opposed to the simply the quantity and severity of it being the result of those unnatural conditions. You see, to my mind, there seem to be some on Misplaced Pages, and I oppose this and hope you do, which I think goes way to far. There seem to be those who might want to remove, or to couch in language as "maybe not so", any discussion of hierarchy and dominance and submission in wolves and dogs because Mech has proven that wolf packs are mostly families, as opposed to that just explaining how the alphas got to be alphas, which is usually just by being loving, gentle, but still strict parents. I worried about that because, to my mind, a hierarchy that is pre-established from the fact that the pack is a breeding pair and their offspring rather than being established through bullying and fighting, is still a hierarchy; that proving that, in most packs, it's more the former than the later doesn't mean it's not there.

Other aspects of my behavior may have confused you. Please remember that the second time around at Carolina dog you gave another reason for your edit, which I found valid and have agreed with and will defend if I see anyone revert it. You've won that, I'm not arguing that now and haven't for some time. I don't object to that edit per se, just the implications of the reasoning given the first time, as it sounded like you might have been being partisan about some dog-training debate, and so I got onto this tangent. And so I moved this discussion here because I'm not talking about that edit or any other edits I've seen you do, which are good, I believe, so thanks, wikilove to you, I'd give you a barnstar or some such but for some reason I never do that. And please understand that when I described what I believed about the Carolina dog, it was just stuff I'd gathered from old vague impressions. Remember that since then, I have found reason to doubt whether all those ideas about the nature of the Carolina dog were true and offered to continue talking about that there, but wanted to talk about this here, not that. And you are right to do what you do with phrasing at temperament sections that proscribe instead of describe, that are "howtoish", or seem designed to support one dog training philosophy or another even if it means bending facts to do so, I understand and support you in that and will try to follow your example. My concern was only to find out if this movement to "overthrow dominance theory" crusade I perceive, that this new fact that most packs are families means that wolf packs as really some kind of egalitarian anarchist society and all older research to the contrary should be thrown out of Misplaced Pages or something, this is too extreme to my mind, and I hope to yours too. Wolves are hierarchical though it may break my democratic heart to say so, that doesn't matter. They are born to understand and use dominance and submission as a way of keeping the peace and making their society work without things coming to violence. This does not mean that "Caesar’s Way" or whatever is right, it just means that, if it's wrong, it's not because wolf packs aren't hierarchical, it could still be wrong for some other reason. I could talk to you more about that, but I'm satisfied and am trying not to get distracted. I wanted simply to find out if you needed convincing that hierarchy, dominance, and submission are integral to wolf nature, and if so, I was going to start showing you pictures and films and more studies and drawings and on and on of wolves doing the whole ritual until you agreed. Now, I don't think I will, because tonight you have said things that make me think you are not one of these "wolf anarchists" (if you will, my name for Mech et al), out to prove wolf society to be egalitarian so as to defeat that awful dog-kicking he-whose-name-they-will-not-mention's "dominance theory", which might be a laudable goal, but should not be done by denying the reality of wolf pack hierarchy or their dominance/submission instincts. You've set my mind at ease about that, and I'm tempted to wrap this up and move onto something else, such as maybe talking about what we can do to improve the Carolina Dog article or proscriptive temperament sections back on my page with you, or something else. Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason "dominance theory" is wrong

A tangent from the above discussion is this topic: If "Caesar’s Way" (please forgive the shorthand term) is wrong, or at least the very least, not completely or always right, and if the reason that fact is not that wolves aren't naturally born for dominance and submission, and that all wolf packs, whether families or otherwise, are hierarchical; well, why then is it wrong?

I have many questions about the following, and you may too, so please understand that I am not saying that her thoughts and your thoughts or my thoughts on this matter are necessarily identical (although that may be). But I would very much like to commend to you, if you haven't already to read it, Chapter Two of Animals Make Us Human by Dr. Temple Grandin: A Dog's Life. I think you will enjoy it very much. Keep up the good work! Chrisrus (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry I didn't reply to this -- slipped my mind. I think we're on the same page, so perhaps the Carolina Dog article is up next. I enjoyed the excerpt of that chapter on GBooks and will try to get my hands on a copy. Thanks! Anna (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yah, I was thinking how to summarize it in as few words as possible, even to nomify it somehow, and wonder if you'd agree with this: "...because they're not wolves, they're puppies!" I.e: dogs are, to widely varying degrees, mental babies or children compared to adult wolves, and thus need their surragate parents, not their humans to do an immitation of their idea of how an alpha wolf might act. As for a term, how about "dog parenting theory"? What that distiction means in terms of what dog training technique is best, however, is less clear, because, as she says, whether you see yourself as the alpha or as the mommma, you've stil got to be clearly the one who's in charge. But the change in mindset from one to the other would effect how one approaches that task somehow, I would think. Chrisrus (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the "dogs as wolf puppies" theory -- it makes sense to me and explains many common behaviors very well. As we breed further away from wolfy-types, though those have become popular and may always be, it's very possible that we lose many of their social behaviors and inclinations, or at least those found in adult wolves, and are left with something like a wolf puppy. If trainers then assume that the dog probably isn't trying to push them out of their throne, since that's a behavior largely foreign to wolf puppies (as far as I know), it could change the way that issues were approached. In that vein, I like "dog parenting theory" a lot and it makes more sense than assuming that every behavior, from begging (the opposite) to barking, is "dominant". Take a look at this list and you'll see some more extreme examples of behaviors considered dominant. A few of those may have some merit, but some have no defense. Anna (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A project that might interest you

Hey Ana here's something you might be interested in getting in on: User:BD2412/Wild dog. BD, Oldsingerman, and I have been trying to get this stuff straight for some time, and with the recent discovery of a high quality WP:RS which delves into these kinds of distinctions, we've recently started to assemble something I think will be awesome. BD has a special project in which he turns certain disambiguation pages into what he calls "central concept" articles, and he's good at it and I really like the way he thinks, being one who is attracted to gray areas and fuzzy edges. I'd recommend also seeing the page Wild Dog/Feral dog and its discussion page as well so you can see where we're coming from/what we're trying to fix/improve. Chrisrus (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Very neat and long overdue. Seems he just moved it to the Wild dog page, so I'll try to weigh on the talk page today. Anna (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Viljo koirarannalla 18-edit2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of American Akita and Akita Inu

Hi, Anna. It is proposed that American Akita and Akita Inu be merged into Akita (dog), which currently is a redirect to Akita Inu. Could you please comment there and get some other dog lovers to comment. I have no axe to grind, I just want the issue resolved. Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL!

You're good! . Very nice.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Category mention vs membership

   Hi, and thanks for editing. I had occasion to go to a 3rd-party's talk page and noticed it was a member of Category:Dog breeds originating in China. It's fixed, so if you immediately understand how that happens (i.e., if it was a slip of the whatever, not the misunderstanding that i assume most of us go thru), then enuf said. If not, drop me a "Huh?" note -- well, unless you want to hunt it down for your own edification! Enjoy.
--Jerzy•t 08:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Proper punctuation

Here is a site that's not ignorant of the need for a hyphen. And here is another. And another. These are people who realise that ordinary readers do a double-take when the grammar is so badly askew. WP doesn't usually sink to the lowest level, even where it sadly seems to be majority usage among experts. Experts are particularly bad at punctuation—they get lazy because they easily recognise a string through familiarity. Our readers cannot be expected to be familiar with the string, and I don't want Signpost readers having to read it twice and wonder, thanks. Tony (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)