Talk:African wild dog

Attacks

The African wild dog was involved in an attack at the Pittsburgh Zoo. So can this be on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:7890:4CD2:D4C7:D38E (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not consider this relevant, see WP:NOTNEWS. BhagyaMani (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Interspecies breeding

I would like to add a statement saying that African wild dogs cannot crossbreed with domestic dogs or wolves. I made this edit but (bringing in @Mariomassone) someone reverted it saying "already implied in taxonomy". Wikipedia is not just for scientists and since the species is called African wild dog it isn't clear to the average reader whether or not it can crossbreed -- hence, adding such a statement would be helpful. Anyone else have any comments on this? If there are no more opinions, I'll look for Wikipedia:Third opinion BrightOrion (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you can say lack of interbreeding is implied in the taxonomy. Intergeneric crosses can occur within carnivores, including several cat ones that are being used as pets (e.g. Bengal cat and Savannah cat).

I'll also bring up a problem at Jackal–dog hybrid where it says dogs can't interbreed with the non-Canis jackals without a source. Perhaps the source for the African wild dog also covers the Lupulella jackals. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point! BrightOrion (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you or the comments. I used this as the source https://davidshepherd.org/painted-dogs/painted-dog-facts/ for saying AWD cannot breed with domestic dogs. Is this source acceptable do you think? BrightOrion (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this source is NOT acceptable. You need to provide a WP:RS, not a website. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say it's not the best source, i.e. not a scientific journal and not giving its source. However, it is the website of a recognised wildlife charity started by a known artist and conservationist, David Shepherd. It's borderline, but I'd say it's just about acceptable. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more links (slightly more scientific) saying that AWD and domestic dog cannot interbreed.

https://www.nathab.com/blog/ten-facts-about-the-african-wild-dog/ WWF article

https://www.africanwilddogwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/awdw0001.pdf Africanwilddogwatch.org article

I'm not a vet, but have some knowledge of biology and evidence-based practice. I would have thought that using both of those last two references to support the point is reasonable until/unless a vet or ecologist can provide a textbook source for the statement (e.g. . Sadly, I don't have £162 spare to access the PDF! Kitb (talk)

Update: I have just emailed Prof Creel, the author of the textbook, to see if it confirms this fact—watch this space! 🤞 Kitb (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This RfC is a mess. How is anybody expected to comment upon a statement like this? Where is the indication that WP:RFCBEFORE was exhausted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, I'm sorry the RfC format is a mess. TBH I found it quite confusing as to how to list it. Nevertheless, it has succeeded in getting some very useful comments and I hope this article will be improved as a result. I did ping the person who reverted my edit (Mariomassone) but there has been no response. BrightOrion (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think that I've worked it out. The {{rfc}} tag had been placed after the statement when it should have been before; and BrightOrion was in breach of WP:INTERLEAVE by splitting up Jts1882's post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

And it's looking better already. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has died down a bit so I propose adding text that says African wild dogs cannot crossbreed with domestic dogs or wolves, and using the above two references (WWF article and Africanwilddogwatch.org article) as sources. I will proceed with this unless there are any disagreements? BrightOrion (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You ought to be more patient. And I do not agree to use websites as sources. Find a better ref, e.g. a journal article. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be a singleton here BhagyaMani. I agree with using those sources as references, and so does Kitb ("I would have thought that using both of those last two references to support the point is reasonable") and Jts1882 ("[David Shepherd] It's borderline, but I'd say it's just about acceptable". So the vote count stands at 3-1 against you at the moment. BrightOrion (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

More like 3-2. Mariomassone (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The Canid hybrid article says "however, it is believed that Cuon, Lupulella and Lycaon cannot breed with each other or with Canis.[7][8]"

[7] "Painted Wolves: The Colorful Carnivores of the African Wild". Live Science. 28 February 2019.

[8] Sillero-Zubiri, Claudio; Hoffmann, Michael J.; Dave Mech (2004). Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. World Conservation Union. ISBN 978-2-8317-0786-0.[page needed]

What's wrong with using that as a reference? BrightOrion (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: I have searched Ref. [8] above, but can't find any mention of AWD and domestic dog hybridisation. Therefore, I think Ref. [7] alone would be best. BrightOrion (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A more authoratative source: The unique adaptations observed in African wild dogs were likely facilitated by their unique demographic history. Most large canid lineages have experienced gene flow from divergent species, whereas our inferred demographic model suggests that African wild dogs were genetically isolated from other species. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44772-5 Mariomassone (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

So does anyone object to me using the above reference that Mariomassone found? BrightOrion (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit done. BrightOrion (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani can I remind you of Wikipedia's policy of "Don't be a jerk". And by that I mean deliberately reverting my edits repeatedly. BrightOrion (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

"were genetically isolated" doesn't mean "cannot interbreed"; it means "didn't interbreed" without saying why. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

... On the other hand: if it's already obvious based on the taxonomy, then arguments based on weaknesses of the sources are rather pointless. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The two sources currently in the article both flatly state that the African wild dog can hybridize with other canids and produce fertile offspring. I corrected the text to match those sources. 72.66.107.22 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Do not include in lead - just not significant amount on this in the article or external sources so included in the lead is contrary to WP:LEAD and is WP:UNDUE. Mostly mentions about breeding of animals will be about how they do breed, such as season and frequency and size of litter, plus here the specifics of a dominant breeding pair. Even where there is common cross breeding such as Mules then it might have a minor note in the body of the article Horse, but not a lead prominence. Uncommon hybrids such as Liger, Zonkey, or Geep would not get more than that, and mention of nonexistent crossbreed would be below that unless there were highly prominent efforts to make it happen. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Question Re. my edit

Can someone tell me why my edit was reverted? I did make sure to provide a source to my edit (in this case the official website for one of the lodges in the reserve). Hyenaboy (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You can see in the comment of the edit that reverted you: "Rem ref to a blog". While blogs are a source, they are not a reliable source, which claims of new or changed data or status require. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

so, it doesn't matter if the blog is the official one of the reserve? I would have thought it would, since the lodge owner (who are no doubt the ones who made the blog) no dout know what goes on in the reserve. So, I'd say a lodge mentioning it is 100% proof that it happened. Then again, it is entirely possible they made a mistake? Hyenaboy (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Right. They could be mistaken. Or they could be slanting things in their favor, or whatever. It's just not reliable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking: what does "slanting" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyenaboy (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable as sources, see WP:BLOGS. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

African Wild Dog Predation on Cape Buffalo

The Pack is incredibly large, but there are documented cases of African Wild Dogs predating upon Adult Cape Buffalo, as the Clip provided below shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm6hhtT3tZ4 WL Enthusiast (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Neat. Find a WP:RS you can site... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, there seems to be no specific studies or reports on their capacity that confirm it, despite seemingly semi frequent videos and the like online. Rather Unfortunate, and I'll try harder to find some. For now however, I dont think there's any reliable sources aside from visual documentation. WL Enthusiast (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright I've looked for a while, however I have found nothing. There's nothing in scientific literature or even just articles discussing the predation. It's rather undeniable that they do hunt Cape Buffalo however, with the surprisingly large swathes of videos taped by several different people confirming that they do. what do we do then? Do we just not include it because there's nothing in scientific literature about it? or what? WL Enthusiast (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:African wild dog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

This is an interesting, mature, and well-structured article, and I have rather few comments to make on it.

• There is a citation needed tag in Hunting and diet. Y

• The claim about being an apex predator is inadequately supported. The supporting reference is in any case not really about the species and is doubtfully a reliable source for this sort of claim (and in fact it seems that it only ever supported part of the sentence). However the claim can be supported by [96] Aebischer et al 2020 so please repeat that for the apex predator part (and remove the anecdotal crocodile part). Y

The first paragraph of "Threats and conservation" from "Surveys in the Central" to "trading lion skins" is mainly off-topic (lions not dogs). Please cut it down to focus on the dogs. Y

• Refs [4], [11] need publisher. Y

• Refs like [4], [5], [7], [55] are basically WP:PRIMARY (wild dog and similar charities) and as such are rather poor sources if indeed we can use them at all: normally we can only use that sort of thing for basic facts about the charities themselves, not for science. It would certainly be better to use proper research papers as has been done for most of this article. Y

• Refs [14] Scott, [25] Wang Tedford, [39] Castello, [40] Kingdon, [65] Creel Creel, [94] Grenard. and [95] Jackman Scott are missing page numbers. Y Couldn't find a page for the last one

• Ref [51] needs author, date, website (Phys.Org). Y

• Ref [66] Walker et al should cite the research paper not the image. Y

• "The fur ..... It gradually loses its fur" => "Adults gradually lose their fur" Y

• "Tigrean shepherds would repel" => "Tigrean shepherds used to repel" Y

• Several instances of "also" in text and tables are redundant and should be removed. Y

• I'm a bit surprised to see Hugo van Lawick and Jane Goodall's excellent book relegated to "Further reading". I suggest we at least wikilink both of these famous authors; better would be to add a mention of the book in the main text (maybe adjust the In media heading...), as it has been cited by numerous scientists as a pioneering work on the species. Y

• The other three sources in "Further reading" seem odd choices: the two papers should either be used in the text and cited there, or removed, while the book "Mammal species of the world" seems simply misplaced and should be removed. Y

• In External links, the AWF link should be https://www.awf.org/wildlife-conservation/african-wild-dog. Y

• In External links, the WCN link doesn't discuss dogs at all, please remove it. Y

• The "Distribution and habitat" section occupies a large part of the article. The title is somewhat of a mismatch with the content as most of the section is taken up by a series of enormous tables going into minute and probably WP:UNDUE detail on local distribution, while habitat is mentioned only in the first two paragraphs. The material is however derived almost entirely from one paper, [47] Fanshawe et al 1997. Further, the use of national flags in "Distribution and habitat" is non-standard (see MOS:FLAGCRUFT). These features reinforce the impression that the material is undue; excellent as the 1997 work may have been, it is now quite old and probably superseded in many parts of Africa. I think we should remove all the tables and replace them with a) a SHORT summary of [47], and b) the addition of some more recent work on African wild dog distribution, even if this is only fragmentary (e.g. South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Zimbabwe where I see work has been done). Y

• The list of Indigenous names is inappropriate for a species article on English Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). Unless there is good reason to mention a name in another language, such as that the name is the origin of the English name, it's basically wandering off-topic (Criterion 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). Y

• Image usage is appropriate and from Commons; licensing appears to be appropriate.

Summary

This is a largely well-constructed article on an important topic. With the few changes indicated, it should soon make a worthy Good Article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

ALMOST done. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

All of your points have, I believe, been covered. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 17:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits by sockpuppet account

This article has been extensively edited by a sockpuppet account (User:Dancing Dollar): have any of their edits been problematic? Jarble (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Dancing Dollar also GANed the pages on Leopard and Snow Leopard, both of which were well prepared. I didn't notice any problematic edits there. @SilverTiger12: did you? BhagyaMani (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice any problems with their edits other than a multitude of quick, small copy-edits flooding the article history. For the most part the end result was good though. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)