Talk:Dog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Dogs in culture

I have to say this is one of the most comprehensive articles I've ever seen (but it needs to have heaps broken into separate ones) but I think there's a glaringly obvious omission: most such articles talk about the topic in our culture, that is, what position does the dog have when seen in human culture? Say, how is it portrayed in art, what are its characteristics and what does it represent in mythology etc, right down to how it is seen in contemporary media like stereotypes in cartoons and how it appears in little language caveats (dog's breakfast and, as mentioned, doggy style!). --tilgrieog

Size cleanup

I'm goign to be going through and cleaning up and shortening certain areas. For example, Working Dogs has its own page, so it is redundant to include all of that information on this page. I am also going reorder some areas of the page just for better continuity. Information will only be omitted if it is redundant or if it is better summarized in another article and the link is directly established. I'll summarize major changes here when I'm finished. Thanks --Waterspyder 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone be horribly offended If I moved the majority of the terminology to the page on Dog Breeding? --Waterspyder 15:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Classification

The article refers to dogs as omnivorous. It is true that they sometimes eat foods other than meat and that in some species those foods can form a substantial part of the diet. However, dogs are belong to the order Carnivora and are officially carnivorous. If dogs can cross-breed with wolves, they'd better be in the same order. Probably the canid with the least meat in its diet is the fox, if we're going to quibble. Bears are Carnivora although they eat quite a variety of foods. Remember that animals can secondarily develop different modes of life, but that doesn't change their evolutionary history: they have the teeth and inheritance of a carnivore. The cross-reference should go to Carnivore or, better yet, to Carnivora, both of which refer plainly to diet vs. taxonomy, unlike the entry for Omnivore.

• P.S. A series of fossil discoveries in the 1990s showed that whales developed from a meat-eating hoofed animal (artiodactyl, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even-toed_ungulate).

Monado 10 April 2005

Sometimes dietary habits change over tens of thousands of years. Yes, dogs are and always will be part of Order Carnivora. This does not necessarily make them carnivorous persay. This distinction actually requires that the animal must be able to survive on meat alone. An obligate carnivore means that the animal must absolutely have meat or it will die. Evidence suggests that dogs actually require a combination of meat and plant material in order to be healthy. --Waterspyder 19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Carnivores are a grouping of animals unquestionably similar to each other. Most medium-to-large meat-eating mammals are easily categorized as the Carnivora (canids, ursids, mustelids, pinnipeds, felids, hyenids). Insectivores are flesh-eaters, too, as are some bats and most cetaceans

Giant pandas (more similar to bears than to dogs) have made the nearly-complete transition from predator to herbivore. They clearly fit in the same family Carnivora due to obvious similarities of build, paw structure, and dentition and far better than among any other family of mammals, and Man, although somewhat less carnivorous than dogs and more carnivorous than any bear but the polar bear, is still more an ape than anything else. We certainly don't classify the strictly-predatory Cetaceans as Carnivores even if they contain some of the most efficient predators in the sea (orcas and dolphins).

So:

   Cat         -- Carnivore   and exclusively carnivorous
   Giant Panda -- Carnivore   even if herbivorous
   Dog         -- Carnivore   even if omnivorous
   Human       -- Primate     even if omnivorous
   Rat         -- Rodent      even if omnivorous
   Pig         -- Artiodactyl even if omnivorous
   Orca        -- Cetacean    even if strictly carnivorous
   Crocodile   -- non-mammal  and highly carnivorous   
   Eagle       -- non-mammal  and highly carnivorous.

It's the distinction between carnivorous creatures and the Carnivores. Humans can under some circumstances become pure carnivores, but they are still Primates. If some non-Carnivore evolved into a predatory terror as have humans and to a lesser extent chimpanzees and baboons (a pig might be the best candidate), then it would still not become a Carnivore.--66.231.41.57 06:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say that cats are nearly exclusively carnivorous, but not quite entirely. I've known many cats that like the occasional bit of fruit, and some with rather odd tastes in vegetables, such as a great fondness for olives.--RLent 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientific name

Isn't the scientific name now refered to as just Canis familiaris, without the lupus? Canis lupus is the name for the gray wolf - so isn't "Canis lupus familiaris" saying that the domestic dog is a subspecie of the gray wolf? I have learned in school that the scientific name is indeed just Canis familiaris. Perhaps a note about the differing opinions on the scientific name should be included in the article? Shadowlink1014 19:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• It seems to have gone the other way--used to be canis familiaris, but now is more generally considered to be a subspecies. (They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring...) I don't know what the various current genetic studies will reveal. A couple of years ago they were saying that the DNA showed that there was virtually no difference between dogs & wolves let alone most breeds; most recent articles in the last month or so say that in fact they can even tell what breed the dog is in many cases. So you might be right that the jury is still out, but I'm not confident enough in what I've read and where to make intelligent-sounding statements about it. Elf | Talk 20:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hasn't there been a change to calling the domestic dog canis lupis familiaris?

Daniel C. Boyer

External links

Consider: adding * "Did Animals Sense Tsunami Was Coming?" Ieopo 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not yahoo. The "external links" should be used in rare cases when external sites contain useful, but copyrighted (and hence cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia) information; The "external links" should not become a huge list of every site that is about somehow relevant to dogs. The latest link added, supposedly to a very specific health problem (dry eyes) in dogs but actually on a cat site (!) - is a prime example of what should not be on the external links link. The link to the amstaf site is another good example - why link to this specific site and not to one of the other 100 breads? After all, there's a seperate dog breeds article, and perhaps even a separate amstaf page - so move that link there. I'm not bold enough to trim the link list myself because it appears that there are several frequent contributors to this article who are better knowledgable about the philosophy of this article. Nyh 14:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Expanding article

Added sentence expanding on jobs of dogs. --Daniel C. Boyer

Dogs vs wolves

The article implies that wolves are dogs. Isn't this false in any sense? They're both canines, but they aren't both dogs. (Is there an older or specialized sense of "dog"? If so, it shouldn't be the first one listed.)

In fact, it's the other way around: dogs are wolves. It's just that there are far more dogs than wolves. Dogs are unquestionably descended from wolves that adapted to the presence of early Man. However successful dogs are as a species, they are quite recent in origin. They are all a mere 10,000 years away from being wild wolves. Dogs and wolves interbreed easily so long as differences of size don't preclude mating.

Wasn't there a controversy a few decades ago about whether dogs were descended from wolves or from hyenas? Genetic evidence has settled it in favour of wolves, but it might be interesting to mention the hyena theory...? --JamieHall 23:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading about dogs for many years (only a few decades) and don't remember ever seeing anything about this. If someone can find a solid reference for this, certainly would be worth citing. Elf | Talk 00:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NOTE Hyenas are NOT canids, therefore it is not possible. Hyenas are actually more akin to cats then to dogs, according to the systematic. I don't know who might have stated such a thing, but it most certainly is moot. --Arny 19:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"The phenotypic characteristic that define a wolf from a dog are tenuous. Wolves typically have a "brush tail" and erect ears. While some dog breeds possess one of these characteristics, they rarely possess both." Just for the purposes of my own curiosity, I can think of a few breeds which have both, for one the Australian Cattle Dog, which is descended from, along with other domestic breeds, Dingos. Is there a known explanation?

Hang on. The Australian Cattle Dog is descended from Dingos, but Dingos are descended from domestic dogs that have gone wild! Shurely shome mishtake. 57.66.51.165 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Dogs have been domesticated for somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years. There's a lot of room in there for some dogs to be domesticated, then left alone to become feral and then pretty much wild again, then selectively bred again for domestication, then left alone to become feral, then redomesticated.... It takes only a few generations of really careful selective breeding to end up with a pretty typical domestic dog, and since dogs can breed annually at least--. Elf | Talk 23:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I have a picture of a dog that can be used, but what is the size of the picture have to be? - fonzy

This puppy is part German Sheperd part yellow Labrador retriever.

There is still a request for a dog pix on the main page. Would this one work? (Copy "Image" designation and remove "_Thumb" to get a larger image. Patrick0Moran 04:12, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure about the breed/mix? Looks an awful lot like a pure-bred Anatolian puppy to me!

If it's hard to tell the breed of an adult dog, it's even harder to make guesses about puppies: They're all short-haired, fuzzy, round-faced, and flop-eared. I've left a note on the photographer's talk page asking to clarify, but I have no reason to doubt the statement. Elf | Talk 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I remember laughing my ass off at a commercial here in Canada for toilet paper, where they had a Golden Retriever Mommy, and then her puppies... which were all puppy Cocker Spaniels.

--Waterspyder 21:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm the owner. I bought the puppy for about $30. I saw the sire, who was supposed to be a German Shepard but looked pretty scruffy for a purebred. I didn't see the dam, but was told that she was a yellow Labrador retriever. The owner of the dam blamed the owner of the sire for letting him get loose, so the former took over the task of selling the puppies to good homes. The now-adult dog has a band of darker color right down his spine, as though somebody had dipped a wide paint brush in a color darker than his side and traced it from head to tail. He has a blue-black spot or two in his tongue, which would argue for some Chow in his family history somewhere. He's a very nice dog, not inclined to attack before anybody has done anything to him, and in some ways timid, but very protective if he suspects that I am coming under danger of attack. My horse stepped on his right rear foot by accident one time, which he interpreted as an attack and he lept up to bite the horse at the lower end of her mane. Fortunately he didn't actually succeed in biting her, but I was surprised that he could jump to the height of my own throat with an injured paw. He's not large, less than 50 lbs. In all he's a pretty good argument for hybridizing to avoid genetic problems of hip or whatever. P0M 19:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All the photos in the article are on the right. Is there a reason for this? It doesn't look that great. Hamedog 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

To put a pic on the left just put in a left command, ie

[[Image:Dog retrieving stick.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Dogs can be trained to retrieve]], SqueakBox 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Left oriented pictures tend to break up the flow of text with sentences sometimes starting in the middle of the page. The right margin makes them neat, particularly when the photos are consistent width. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Medical

The instructions about how to administer medicine to a dog calls me to question to this to the limited extent that each of my two dogs would not take a plain pill out of my hand if it were given to them "cold" (they would either not take it in their mouths at all, or take it in their mouths and immediately spit it out), but they would take the pills if I said to them, "You need to take this to make you well!" and took them out of my hand and swallowed them plain. Thus I think the implication that every dog would need to be administered medicine by this method (or the idea I have sometimes heard stated that dogs have to have pills wrapped up in meat or cheese) is untrue. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:52 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Obscure food reference

"There are dog farms in South East Asia, where dogs are grown as source of meat. While Philipine outlawed the consumption of dog meat, it upset a local tribe which regarded dog meat as their traditional food. In 2000, animal rights activists criticised the Korean practice of eating dog meat and some angry South Koreans instead decided to promote dog meat culture during the Olympic Games" - Does anyone else think this is too obscure? Evil saltine 06:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it is a fact and it is usually the news headline (not in America or Europe, of course) when animal rights activists crash with those dog eaters. While half of the article is about dog-as-pet, we have the duty to tell the readers about the "dark side" of the dog-human interaction. It is sad, you can rewrite the paragraph but you cannot simply delete it and ignore this fact. Sorry. -wshun 06:40, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't going to delete it, and i know it's sad, it just seemed like it could use a little clarifying, that's all.

Wish the rewriting is better. wshun 23:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

re: Dog lovers

"Understandably, the conflicts between dog lovers and dog eaters occasionally appear as headline news."

From a strict NPOV, couldn't both groups be described as "dog lovers"? (As in, "steak lovers" or "fish lovers".)

Seriously, this sentence might be better re-written, or deleted. It should be removed as for instant cattle, and cat does nor contain it. Dog and cat are killed as painfull as possible in some contries, due to the susperstition that dog adrenalin work as a medicine aginst impotence.

Cockadoodle?

"Adult Female Cockadoodle"? Perhaps I'm exhibiting ignorance, but I do have interest in dog breeds and this is the first time I run across this particular one. Google cross-referencing only turns up a Tom & Jerry episode named Cockadoodle Dog. And if not the breed, what does "Cockadoodle" exactly refer to? In case it is the name of that particular dog, my vote is for putting the breed instead of that... --AceMyth 05:36, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Never mind

The last edit by Elf is seemingly a good one. but information has been lost. What happened to Trophallaxis, e.g.? Can I revert? Paul Beardsell 03:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Paul Beardsell 03:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite/reorg

I think the paragraph on chocolate is out of place. I appreciate the intent of the author to try to save dogs' lives, but find that paragraph disproportionately emphasizes one specific health issue, as well as being written in a style that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. exclamation point, etc) If there was an article on dog health, then a section on chocolate would be fine, but otherwise it seems as random as putting something like "always have young children ride in the back seat" in the article on homo sapiens.

Also I think the section on dogs as food seems a little strange, given the size of the overall dogs article, I'd think one sentence would do it, rather than a whole section.

Just my suggestions....

-rob ( user:Robbrown )

and good suggestions they are, too. Actually the whole article needs a rewrite, taking into account the more specific articles that we now have. Some of the bits in it look decidedly amateur now. seglea 07:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The general organization is very similar to the Horse article and that seems to work fairly well. Not that the article couldn't use work, as it has definitely expanded in bits and pieces. Based on thoughts above, I was going to start an article on Dog health but I couldn't find a similar model to base it on (like Horse health, Feline medicine, or similar), so I didn't do it. Yet. Any opinions on the best title? (E.g., Canine health?) Elf | Talk 00:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Well, I agree with everyone--how's that for tact? I do see the article as needing a rewrite, but as there's so much work yet to do on this project, I'm not going to stress over it. Perhaps if we all re-read at our convenience and edit or add when something strikes us? I began this today.
• Elf, I'd go with something like 'Dog Health'. Canine Health implies that you're also going to speak to wolves and ferals and the like. Quill 23:15, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Okay, I did a little reorganizing in an attempt to start refining this section. I added some headings, and added a new section that I named 'Diseases and Ailments'. I'm no expert on either, so feel free to add...edit...etc., etc. Quill 06:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Additions and removals

Thinks to add: dog vision, I'm told they see in black and white, is this true, if so can somebody add it to the article?

The article mentions the effect of feeding a dog chocolate, maybe we could add the effect of alcohol.

I did. --66.231.38.91 20:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edward 13:05, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Black & white is an old belief; recent info is that they see color but are red-green colorblind. If I can find more info perhaps I'll add it to the article. I don't have details about alcohol; presumably it has the same effect as it does on people, but because dogs are smaller, it would take a much smaller amount to be toxic. Something else to research. Elf | Talk 21:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just removed this addition:

Dog is also used as a derogatory term for a woman, and as a jocular term for an unscrupulous or sly man. The latter usage was formerly an insult, but its use in this context has declined.

I don't think it's wrong or bad, just misplaced.

a) this is really a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia reference b) term is more often used for a man, use for a woman is modern and less frequent

I thought of creating a disambig. page but thought the text would be better placed at a dictionary entry. Left it here so someone could work with it if they were so inclined.

Quill 00:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page needs references

The page needs technical references to some parts (example: "Intelligence" -> Kaminski paper; "diseases" -> medical papers; "sense of direction"). The way it's currently written doesn't sound too serious. (anon. user 200.161.219.103 8/1/04)

This article is more of an overview. References to detailed info about diseases would be better on individual disease articles; if there were an article on canine intelligence (which would be nice to have), someone could add detailed references if desired, but probably not here--as it is, this does mention Kaminski. If you had more info to add to sense of direction and external links to references, that would be fine, too. Elf | Talk 23:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caption deleted from Elkhound photo

I'm loathe to revert since I believe the user was trying to do an important fix. I've requested that user Ardonik put the caption back. Quill 00:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mixed breed vs mongrel vs mutt

Someone just replaced mixed-breed dog with mongrel. The latter is considered pejorative, a change for the worse with no particular technical advantage. I had a mixed-breed "Italian husky", that is brown-eyed, and I never called her a mongrel, even though I frequently called her a mutt. Ortolan88 20:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've always preferred mutt to mongrel--the latter does seem to have acquired a pejorative inference, although technically I believe it's the most correct term for very-mixed breeds. Mixed-breed dog is probably a much more recent coinage and preference, and I don't really know how widespread it is outside the U.S. or Britain. HOWEVER, we did end up with the article about these dogs at mixed-breed dog, in part to avoid the negative connotation of the other words but also in part because mutt and mongrel are both disambig pages, so to have such pages for dogs, it would have to be mutt (dog) or mongrel (dog) which aren't the most optimum titles. ANYWAY, mostly because that's the article name, I readjusted that paragraph in this article to emphasize the mixed-breed terminology. Elf | Talk 21:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a good thing that...

...dogs are not human beings, and thus it isn't sexist to have this article at Dog based on what the second paragraph of this article says. 66.245.69.5 00:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caption

I don't know why anyone is using <small>; it looks like about a 4-point font on my screen, as if the default font in the display wasn't small enough. I removed it and used a different format that I've seen in some other areas. However, in the WikiProject:Dog breeds, we use all thumbnails; the goal was to make it clear that someone can click on the image and see a larger one, which information one loses w/out the thumbnail, plus the thumb allows captions which otherwise one has to go through contortions to get. I've left off the <wiki>|thumb|</nowiki> again for the moment, but I'd really like to see it put back. Elf | Talk 01:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The thumb gives a clear indication that the full size image is available to view (and, as the photographer, obviously I would like the full image viewed to show off my work ;). I also think the image looks better with the border. And the caption is easier to place and better formatted with "thumb" too -- sannse (talk) 10:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

addition of info about mixed breeds

This has been added--I removed it because (a) the topic is covered elsewhere (mixed-breed dog) and (b) it's just not true--then it was readded:

"" Pure-bred dog shows notwithstanding, mixed breed dogs often combine the best qualities of the breeds mixed and are usually heathier than purebred dogs. Even prize winning purebred dogs are sometimes the victim of crippling genetic defects due to inbreeding."

To be true, it would have to read:

" Pure-bred dog shows notwithstanding, mixed breed dogs sometimes combine the best qualities of the breeds mixed, although sometimes they combine the worst, and are sometimes healthier than purebred dogs, although sometimes they are not. Even prize winning purebred dogs are sometimes the victim of crippling genetic defects due to inbreeding, but then, so are mixed-breed dogs."

This ends up being a nonstatement. There's no evidence except anecdotal that I'm aware of that says that mixed-breed dogs are "usually" healthier than purebred. This needs to come out for both reasons. If there is empirical evidence somewhere contrary to what I've seen and experienced, I'd like to see it referenced and the info needs to go into the mixed-breed article, not here. Elf | Talk 02:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Moreover, inbreeding does not cause genetic defects; rather, it increases the likelihood of genetic pairings, good and bad.Quill 04:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that most information regarding mixed-breed dogs belongs in that article but a brief introduction to the major issues also belongs in this article. I understand that mixed breed dogs present problems as well as opportunities, for example, regression towards the mean. I have edited the added material so that is clearly an attributed opinion, not a proclamation of truth. Other opinions can also be included with appropriate attribution. Fred Bauder 12:01, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I still disagree that mixed-breeds are *usually* healthier than purebreds. If that's a direct quote from your source, it seems irresponsible on his part. I've just been through a dozen books looking for any statistics or anything that definitive statements, and I found a couple who said something like "hybrid theory is a nice theory but it's still just a theory" and most who say essentially that inbreeding of purebreds has resulted in an increased incidence of genetic problems--some mention behavioral, some mention physical. That still falls a long way short of mixed breeds "usually" being healthier than purebreds. Of all the books I checked, one says that the easiest way to avoid genetic problems is to adopt a mixed breed. That still doesn't say that they're usually healther--all that says to me is that, if you have (pick a number out of a hat) 10 purebreds, 2 of which have genetic problems, and 10 mixes, 1 of which has genetic problems, your odds are better by picking a mixed breed. But that's not "usually" healthier. Elf | Talk 16:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not a direct quote. Perhaps it could be rephrased in some way. A lot of this is breed specific and applies more to prize-winning purebreds than to run of the mill dogs. It's the collie with the long nose that is most likely to have eye problems, not some collie off a farm. Some breeds were developed from very few original individuals. That also aggravates the problem. The chapter in the book I quote in the references says over and over that health is a problem. The hardcover: ISBN 1558211403 is much cheaper than the paperback. Fred Bauder 16:35, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the material. I just re-read the book and although he says a great many thing that would argue against trying to keep a purebred dog as a pet, at no place does he argue that mixed breed dogs are more healthy or desireable. I simple drew that conclusion from the information he presents. His solution is for breeders to do better and buyers to be very careful. I apologize for upsetting you. Fred Bauder 20:58, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Usually

Thanks. I'm not upset about that. Just trying to make sure that the article is accurate. In that light: Fred, please stop putting incorrect "usually" back into "'Mixed-breed dog are dogs that do not belong to specific breeds, **usually** being mixtures of two or more." I've removed it for the 3rd time. Are you saying that mixed-breed dogs sometimes aren't mixed-breed dogs??? Elf | Talk 21:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm rereading the edit history and see your comment "Not all dogs are descended from a purebred dog of any breed" which I misinterpreted earlier, too. So I apologize. But that's not what this sentence says. I think then you're saying that "mongrel or mutt also refers to dogs that are not descended from a purebred dog of any breed, which might be the case in some countries with a large feral dog population"?? Something like that. But mixed-breed dogs are always mixed breeds! :-) Elf | Talk 21:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feral dogs are wild dogs, for example, I have read that in Mexico one may encounter feral Chihuahuas. As to mongrel and mutt, they are negative terms I just didn't remove or make an issue of. I would not describe any dog by those terms. In the United States due to our fascination with purebred dogs, dogs which have no purebred dog in their ancestry may be vanishingly small but they probably exist. In other countries, particularly India, unless you wish to call the pariah dogs of India purebred they are the most common dogs. Fred Bauder 12:14, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

A pack of starving voracious feral Chihuahuas is a scary thought. You'd have to wear ankle protection every time you ventured into the wilderness. BTW, mutt and mongrel do sometimes have a negative connotation mainly because of people's aforementioned fascination with purebreds. I do prefer to call my dogs mixed breeds. They are, however, perfectly valid words that can be used for mixed breeds or any dog of uncertain ancestry. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Per websters in regards to dogs, Mutt = mongrel dog; Mongrel=an individual resulting from the interbreding of diverse breeds or strains, esp one of unknown ancestry. Per OED, Mongrel = a dog of no definable beed, resulting from various crossings; Mutt: Oddly enough, not in my copy? Is this In neither case does it define them as being insulting terms for the dogs; only for people. Elf | Talk 18:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dogs as Working Partners

Excellent info, but too much for here.

I would much rather see the information added to the article on working dogs. This particular article can't be all things to all people--er--dogs. Quill 07:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dangers

This section has run amock as well. It now reads as if everyone's pet pooch is a canine timebomb. Much of the cautionary information applies to strange dogs (strange as in 'unknown', not 'peculiar'). For example, one should be able to take food from one's own dog--a dangerous item, for example, and one's own dog should be trained to allow it. Quill 08:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taking food from dogs is tricky. While I can take food from my dogs who are to my knowledge super tolerant, a visiting child may be badly bitten. Fred Bauder 21:08, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Which is why I think a distinction should be made if this is being added to the article. Quill 23:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought of such an inclusion. The rules for one's own dog differ from those for someone else's.

As the introducer of this section, I have stated much that should be obvious. It's worth noting that the dog-man relationship is one of instinctive respect, and any violation of that instinctive respect makes one of the world's most dangerous creatures out of even the gentlest of large creatures. Most persons get the message whenever a dog shows any aggression. Where human stupidity meets the animal world, severe injury or death is possible. Dogs are large predators, and they have much in common with cats of like size. The largest dogs approach the size of lionesses, and have obvious similarities of behavior and build. The threshhold of behavior that can get one hurt is far higher for a dog than almost any other large predator, whether a bear, big cat, giant snake, or crocodilian, but it still exists. The dog is one of the last animals that one wants as an enemy -- which explains why dogs usually scare off burglars, and why police canine units are so effective in apprehending suspects.

Yes, dog claws are sharp, and dog scratches are prone to infection, as I can attest from my own experience from an inadvertent scratch. --66.231.40.135 01:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feel this section needs an extensive re-write - and I have to wonder at where 'world's most dangerous creatures' (from this discussion, not the article) comes from! Some of the things that are supposedly prohibited are things that responsible dog-owners do regularly as part of properly socialising dogs, and the part re why children are especially prone to attack is only relevent to babies still crawling! No mention of the fact that the the relative size of dog and child is crucial. No mention of the importance of avoiding eye-contact with strange dogs that are acting in a threatening manner. (Molony)

I also think it overemphasizes some aspects & underemphasizes others. Feel free to edit it as needed. Elf | Talk 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dogs and cats

Article could benefit from some information on how dogs interact with other pets, especially cats, since it is fairly common to have dogs and cats (and possibly other pets) together in one household. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:41, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

The manner in which dogs interact with cats varies considerable, from violence to playfulness. I do not think anything definitive could be placed here on that subject. --HighInBC 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dogs as Sporting Partners

Since this article quickly becomes too long, I would like to see the new additions in this section moved to their own entries. We already have an article on setters e.g.; anything new should be merged. Quill 22:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Starting article on dog training

Fools rush in, but I am starting an article on dog training. Plenty of opportunities for all to giv their favorite theories, etc. Ortolan88

You're a brave & unsung hero. Thanks for plunging in! Elf | Talk 02:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A lonely one at this point. See Talk:dog training for a list of stuff that needs to be added. Ortolan88 18:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center

I added the link to the Poison Control Center to the section on Dangerous Foods rather than External Links because I felt that it should be easy for readers to find in the event of an emergency. Although Wikipedia is probably not the best source in cases of possible poisoning, I think it probable that at least a few people will end up at this section. The ASPCA site has a lot of good, authorative info, and although it is not free ($50.00 US), its telephone service can be a literal life saver. Dsurber 20:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dogs hearing range

I've found one book (The Dog, David Alderton) that says that dogs & humans hear down to about 20 Hz (and dogs up to 100 KHz); another book (The New Dog Handbook, Hans-J. Ullman), says dogs hear 70Hz to 100KHz. Another book (The Complete Dog Owner's Manual', Amy Marder, VMD) says only "dogs are able to hear sounds of much higher frequency than humans--50,000 to 60,000 cycles per second compared to 20,000 cps" in humans. Not quite a rhetorical question: Why the variations in highs and lows? Does it depend on the breed? I'm adjusting the text for the futz factor until/unless we can answer this question. Elf | Talk 14:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dogs are dependent on humans?

Quote from 'Dogs as Pets': "Dogs are quite dependent on human companionship and may suffer poor health without it."

What evidence is there of this? If there is evidence, is any of it conclusive enough to warrant speaking of it as a scientific fact?

Um, compared to, say, an unscientific fact? ;-) Good question. If/when I have time, I'll go in search of supporting info. It's certainly true in the case of many oddly modified breeds who wouldn't be able to hunt or reproduce without human assistance--some can't even swim (and don't really know it) because of the way they're built. But whether that's generally true for all dogs--hmm. Elf | Talk 00:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It not that dogs as a species cannot live without humans, but rather that individual dogs can develop great emotional bonds with their companions, and when separated from them, they can emotionally suffer. I don't think this is a scienfic fact, I've always thought it was common knowledge. --Berkut 08:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, they say that a pet rabbit lives for only a few days if its released into the wild by its owner. My question is, how do you know, unless you release a bunch of pet bunnys into the woods and count the bodies? I think a better way to say this would be "emperically, it appears that dogs are dependent on humans...."

JMHO... 166.20.114.10 19:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What occurs is that dogs are pack animals and they require a pack. If dogs are isolated from humans, and from other dogs, they will literally pine away and die from lonliness for lack of a better term. Dogs need a pack (human or animal) for good psychological health. --Waterspyder 13:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

needs section on distemper

It needs a section on distemper for the medical piece, just something small, if somebody knows enough to write a quick summary. Gzuckier 03:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Lost dogs

I removed 2 US based lost dog services. This is an international encyclopedia, and it is just so much spam for the rest of us, SqueakBox 22:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Carnivore or omnivore

Not that I personally disagree, but my sense is that the section titled "Carnivore or omnivore" shows some political bias in terms of vegetarianism. I probably wouldn't think twice about a little, subtle vegetarian advocacy in some paragraphs about a dog's diet, but imo bringing up vegan as a dietary option for dogs without getting into facts isn't thorough encyclopedia-ing. Conventional wisdom and a lot of science support high meat-content diet for dogs. While I don't doubt that with conscientious & knowledgeable management a person could safely put their dog on a vegan diet, it's not the norm. The section doesn't discuss more specific and factual issues like ingredients and nutrition in different feed options, or how animals that are taxonomically carnivores naturally utilize plant foods in their diets. The way the section reads now smacks vaguely of pamphleteering.

I don't mean to just complain and not do something about it, but I'm not familiar yet with the wikiConventions of editing and discussing issues like this. Thanks. --Erielhonan 08:50:34, 2005-07-30 (UTC)

Yes, the section is obscenely biased and silly. I have lightly edited it to remove the most outrageous vegetarian advocacy. I tend to think the entire section should be removed, but I'm a little hesitant to do that without more input. Even if it stays I would really like someone to confirm the section's assertion that dogs "require a large proportion" of vegetables and grains in their diet. Sounds like vegan fantasy talk to me, but I could be wrong.

The section can be improved by discussing the carnivorous and herbivorous nature of dogs without pushing propaganda. By discussing their diet and their nutritional requirements, this end could be achieved. I don't think there is a problem with this section per se; I think that by discussing their diet and nature more objectively, this section could be made more encylopedic and relevant.Rintrah 05:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I honestly feel that dogs are omnivorous... page on omnivores lists domestic dogs as an omnivore. According to my understanding of the term, an animal that can subist exclusively on meat OR vegetables would surely qualify as an omnivore, not a carnivore. Comments? --Waterspyder 02:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article

What can we do to make this article a feature article? Rintrah 05:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Pop it through Peer Review - I would, but I've already got a nomination in there at the mo --PopUpPirate 20:29, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

It has already been through peer review once in an attempt to be featured. See the link at the top of this page. Elf | Talk 02:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's never going to be an FA if it doesn't keep under 50 kB, and especially not with all the ownercruft currently included. Just the section "Miscellenous fact" is enough to earn it an instant object at any nomination. "Misc. facts" is nothing but another way of saying "trivia", which is not encyclopedic info. I suggest that you try something that will stifle all the dog enthusiasts from constantly adding their favorite tidbit of doggie info. A disclaimer in the form of a hidden comment might be an idea.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Fighting Dog Breeds

Yes there are dogs bred for fighting, but that is close to the least valuable thing dogs have been bred to do. It certainly doesn't need to be the first item in the list of "See Also"s. This article is already over twice the recommended length. Two links to to dog fighting is too many and given the length of the article, there isn't room for even one. If a reader cares about dog fighting he/she can type "dog fighting" into the search box and get all the information anyone should want. So I reverted the changes by WritersCramp. Dsurber 04:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• You seem to want to go into denial that Dog fighting ever existed, but it did and still does exist, whether we like it or not. I have created a sub-category for dog lists, which will help readers find what they want more effectively and efficiently. WritersCramp 23:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Category:Dogs gets people into pretty much everything in Wikipedia having to do with dogs. This page doesn't need to start the "list of dog topics" all over again--it;'s difficult to maintain and we've worked hard over time to put everything into categories to make them easier to find. There's no reason that a list of lists is more useful than a list of every other dog-related article on this page. It's much better to direct them to catg:dogs. Since that's apparently not clear, I'll replace the list of lists with a clear statement to that effect. I could see, however, since WP seems to have assorted Lists of Lists, that a subcatg of Category:Dogs could be Category:Lists about dogs or Category:Dog-related lists, not sure what would be better phrasing. Maybe someone could find an example of something similar somewhere. Elf | Talk 23:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Doggy style and Dogging

I see no relevence that these have to the article other than their names, would it be suitable to remove these? does anybody have any objections? Tekana 21:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about that. - Trysha 06:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Grains and Vegetables

Dogs do not require large amounts of grain or vegetables in the diet (as said in the article). A very small amount is benecficial though. Many commercial dog food are grain based however, not because it is required or healthier, but because it makes the food cheaper to produce.

• Most commercial dog foods have bone meal which has high levels of phosphorous. That is not good for a dog's kidneys. Having had one dog who had to have stones removed from commercial food I know that. Many vets will tell you to be careful what your dog is given to eat.202.139.41.202 23:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a quote

"Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole." Roger Caras Paul 05:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Background for aggression

It says:

"Although most dogs are not inherently aggressive (unless they are feral, trained to attack intruders, threatened, or provoked), it is important to remember that they are predatory by nature and instinct is something that never disappears."

This sentence is self-contradictory. If "they are predatory by nature and instinct is something that never disappears" then they are inherently aggressive. It may be suppressed some, most or even all of the time, but they're still inherently aggressive. --Q4 10:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've improved the wording a bit, at least now the sentence agrees with itself. --Q4 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Article Too Long ?!

I am wondering if the Dog article should be broken up, it is getting long and I assume longer over the years. Perhaps, discussing the most important sections here and a summary for each and then create a separate page for each topic. Then people will not hesistate to expand them. Elf-Masher 01:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Whisking away trivia into separate article is not a very good solution. It's really more of a matter of deleting trivia and unencyclopedic content altogether. Sections like "Miscellaneous facts" are an automatic no-no and most of the lists should be summarized and turned into prose. Please note that just because people add information doesn't mean we have to store it somewhere, even if it's a sub-article. Any section or fact statement that is mostly concerned with instructing dog owners on how to care for their pets has to go, for example. No splitting or merging; just remove it. Just to clarify what I'm talking about, here's a short list of sections that I would instantly nominate for AfD if anyone would split them off to separate articles:

• dog attributes
• terminology for dogs
• dog dangers

That said, I would really like to see these sections shortened quite drastically and "Terminology for dogs" should be removed altogether, since it contains info that should be covered elsewhere and a bunch of synonyms which amounts to nothing but dictionary content.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The terminology would have to be rethought because some of those terms redirect here; certainly we'd keep the terms for male, female, young, group of dogs, like that. The first paragraph seems necessary because it covers the scientific name and the issue of the general idea of what a dog is. That leaves us with removing maybe one sentence--don't know that that helps at all. Where else would you cover terminology for dogs except in an article about dogs? Other animal articles identify the scientific name, words for males & females, etc.

Dog attributes section on coats could probably be shortened and summarized because there's a whole article that covers the details (I tried it once but looks like it could use another pass to make sure all the details got into the other article). But I don't know where else you'd talk about dogs' hearing and sense of smell, which are some of the most interesting and useful aspects of the animal.

The dog dangers section I've been thinking could be spawned off into an article on dog aggression or dog bites or some such; it's quite relevant to all of the hot-button issues around breed-specific legislation. There's even more that could be said.

Elf | Talk 23:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Human behavior as provocations" section could be considerably condensed. It appears to boil down to "being in the vicinity of a dog, but not being a dog yourself", but put in a ludicrously verbose manner. It would also aid comprehension to put it in this shorter form. --80.3.179.56 11:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I proposed earlier to take all the terminology and merge it with Dog Breeding, where all the terms are far more relevent, and people want to know if their pug is supposed to have an odd tail or a corkscrew tail. --Waterspyder 21:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Domesticated?

This page shows their conservation status as Domesticated, which is not listed on conservation status..

It should read Secure. I'll change it. --Waterspyder 04:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring the taxobox from Doesticated to Secure as per the Conservation Status designations. From conservation status.: Secure (SE): no immediate threat to the survival of the species. This category overlaps Least Concern but has been applied to humans and domesticated animals, for which the IUCN criteria are not valid. Examples: Human, Cat, Dog, Llama. --Waterspyder 21:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Just wanna know

I'm a Shih-Tzu owner who wants to know, are female Shih-Tzu's larger then male Shih-Tzu's?

Most canine breeds exhibit various degrees of sexual dimorphism. In dogs this tends to be that on average, males are larger than females. This being said, there are always exceptions. I would say, as a rule, female Shih-Tzu's are probably not larger than the male, but you will find females who are indeed larger than the males. --Waterspyder 21:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Reproduction

I just cleaned up the section on Reproduction to make it more readable since there is a ton of information in there, and I broke it up under fertility, menarche, etc... why was it reverted? Most of the original information was still there...--Waterspyder 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake, I've restored and merged the edits. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem about the mistake, but can we discuss changes in here. I think you've gone through and reverted most of my edits. I'm not saying my rationale was the correct one necessarily, but I think we should voice our actions here. It's getting a little messy on the page right now IMHO. --Waterspyder 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Is "accidentaly allow" a correct and precise usage of the english language? Ehjort 08:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I'd say not. Elf | Talk 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned Dogs

I just copied that out as it was. I think it's a rural thing (Canada and US). --Waterspyder 19:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well lets leave it as sometimes then as this is an international encyclopedia. Never seen it in NZ eiother where I spent a while living on a sheep farm, SqueakBox 19:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen it eaither, but I live in urban Canada. I hear about cruel things like this happening, people get upset when the media reports it, but for the most part, it's happening in places where no one is around to notice or it's simply considered practical by the community. I as a city-dweller can't fathom the day to day issues faced by a rural farmer plagued by dogs trying to kill my livelihood. --Waterspyder 19:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Breeds of Dogs

Is there, anywhere in Wikipedia, a list of the known or official dog breeds? It'd be insane to add such a thing to this already-prodigous article, but purhaps there should be a "Dog Breeds" article. We could also shift some of the sections about canine physical appearance from here to there, allowing us to shorten this one. Just a thought.

--Zech, Nov 1, 4:17pm

There is an article on Dog breeding in existence with like nothing on it. A listing of dog breeds and all that terminology would be so much better over there. I proposed a move, but no one answered --Waterspyder 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my, I take a month's vacation and no one's around any more who knows their way around the dog breeds project?! There is a list of dog breeds that has a particular order and style and content developed over about 4 years. There are individual breed articles for many of those breeds using a format and approach likewise developed over time; you can find lots of details and discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds. You can also find out that dog breeding is probably fine the way it is by reviewing the many related articles starting at the top category list of Category:Dogs. Hope this helps. Elf | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "classes of dogs", which is AKC specific and not internationally recognized (there have been lots of discussions on how to group dogs--decision is not to use any specific org, not FCI nor AKC or UKC etc., but to ID each breed in any categories in which it might fit). Also the list was already addressed in American Kennel Club, so I merged in some of the description from here. And since grouping is somewhat arbitrary in many cases, doesn't really belong in a general article on dogs anyway. Elf | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 20:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (And how come after being gone for a month+, my signature no longer works correctly? Argh. )

Reproduction needs humans?

I'm having a hard time with this sentence under the section heading 'Reproduction': "The act of reproduction between dogs rarely occurs without human intervention." Dogs make puppies quite well without people and need only a little in-attention to preform this feat. Perhaps this section refers entirely to the purebreed focused dog loving community? TomCerul 14:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no stopping them! -Bonalaw 10:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes, but it could still use some work. TomCerul 16:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you noticed...?

This article is getting more and more pictures every day. People are keen to show off their pets, it seems. Kid Apathy 19:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There's maybe only one additional photo since I last looked at it back in October. Pretty much the photos that were there seemed to illustrate the ideas in the adjacent paragraphs. Elf | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 20:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Too many images

There are far too many images in this article; I'd advise at least five to be removed. The fair use code is also being violated. --DrippingInk 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How is the fair use code being violated. I have taken out what I consider to be the worst 5 images, as I agree about too many images, SqueakBox 02:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The beginning Article

See where it says;

"domesticated for at least 24,800 years and perhaps for as long as 150,000 years based on recent evidence."

What evidence is there on that? I thought dogs were domesticated at least 10,000 BCE just a few thousand years before modern civilization. Earlier than thought nomadic tribes had eaten any substance found (including dogs, horses, ect..) I don't thing cave dwellers (cave men) would have pets in prehistoric times.

See human evolution--King of the Dancehall 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's in one of the references listed--dang, it was listed here somewhere. Made lots of news reports maybe a year ago that genetic evidence showed that domestic dog had split off from wolf tremendously longer ago than previously thought. "Pet" wouldn't be the word for it. Hunting companion or guard dog or both more likely. Elf | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 04:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Grapes?

How are grapes dangerous to dogs? I've seen dogs eat grapes on a few occasions without ill effects. What's the danger? Citizen Premier 18:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always let my dogs have some, too, but not no more. See Dog_health#Dangerous_foods; there's info on the web, too, if you go looking. Apparently it's only been recently determined. Elf | Talk 20:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose it's mostly a threat to smaller dogs, but it's still good to be careful. Citizen Premier 18:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam and dogs

this article should maybe mention about how the hadith says about they are unclean. i dont know the specifics.

It's currently mentioned at the end of the introductory section. Clicking the link to unclean brings up a bit more info. I don't believe that anything more is required. Elf | Talk 20:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do dogs eat poop?

This article has no information on this. I'd like to know why. DyslexicEditor 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dogs eat poop because they like poop. Too bad I don't have any references on it... --Dschor 23:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

a yahoo search! Also, dogs aren't the only ones to eat poop, even apes do it sometimes. It probably isn't repulsive to a creature which doesn't get sick from eating it. Citizen Premier 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See coprophagia. Theories abound. Can get there from here through dog health link; not sure it's really worth a mention in this article. Elf | Talk 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked my dog; he said "doesn't everybody?" Gzuckier 03:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My puppy did for a while until it kept making her throw up. Now she rolls in it daily. I am *tired* of hosing off a struggling 11-month-old daily in the sub-freezing morning in my bathrobe in the yard... Elf | Talk 03:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Just be glad you don't live in the country, where opportunities for rolling in cow dung and horse manure abound. Quill 23:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dogs eat poop to remind us they are disgusting. ;-) Seriously though, the dogs can extract nutrition from feces, because many animals many animal's digestive systems are inefficient, and their feces contain partially digested nutrients.--RLent 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

breed types?

This sentence: In February 2004, the Canine Studies Institute in Aurora, Ohio, arranged recognized breeds of dogs into ten categories. is not useful unless someone actually goes on to explain what the categories are. Quill 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I know nothing. Elf | Talk 02:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

book references

Why on earth is Kennel Club Books, a borderline (commercial advert?) stub, listed at the top of reference material here? Many more established and better known groups have breed series, one might as well list the RSPCA or the breed clubs' own books for the ...for Dummies series. I'm removing it; if someone can add a comprehensive dog reference book for Kennel Club Books, then that's fine. Quill 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I don't know. Elf | Talk 02:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I nominated Kennel Club Books for deletion, it looks like quasi-spam to me. Maybe not though, it really is borderline. - Trysha ^(talk) 08:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The american kennel club publishes a book with all breeds if that is what you mean.--Sonora ^Ş 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, they do, and if someone uses that book as a reference, it shd be listed. The issue here was more that an entire publisher is listed as a reference, rather than a specific book in their product line. Elf | Talk 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Domestication

"It has been argued the dog has been domesticated for 12,000 years, but perhaps for as long as 150,000 years based on recent genetic evidence." This is just plain wrong. Both the fossil evidence and the DNA evidence give the age at 15,000 years ago. Please cite sources [1]. "Weasel phrases" such as "It has been argued", or "some say", are always a red flag for me that I am about to read utter nonsense. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that when I wrote the original form of that and added appropriate references in the References and external links sections, it still wasn't common in wikipedia to add footnotes to references. I don't remember whether I wrote the text as it is now, but I have now added a footnote to the appropriate reference (and there might be more, but that's the one I remember noting). Elf | Talk 07:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Protection

Somebody better find an Administrator to Protect the article, there is to much vandalism !~ SirIsaacBrock 03:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection works only if there's a short-term spate of vandalism occurring; this page for some reason has always been a popular target of every new kid who comes along. Maybe "dog" is easy for them to spell. ;-) So we can't really protect it, because then no one would ever be able to edit it. It would also be worthwhile if it were, say, the main page (which it isn't), or the day's featured article (but again, just for a day or so). It is on the Most vandalized pages list, so lots of people are watching the page all the time and most vandalism is caught within minutes. It's just something we need to live with. Elf | Talk 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it requires to be semi-protected Sprotected SirIsaacBrock 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As much as it would be nice to protect pages that lots of people edit badly, the problem is also that...lots of people edit them, and sometimes the edits are useful, and page protection is generally considered to be harmful because it discourages new users. I checked the page histories of a few articles in Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages and this isn't any worse than most of them. Elf | Talk 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check War of 1812 it stopped the chronic vandalism cold ! Remember semi-protect still allows edits, just stops the compulisive obsessive spammer. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy#Clarifying about long-term random vandalism. Elf | Talk 04:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

What do we have to say about Konrad Lorenz's belief that the dog originates from the golden jackal? --Smack (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In all my years of reading about dogs, and particularly about all the recent DNA research, there's never been any indication that I've seen that jackals have anything to do with dogs or wolves. Elf | Talk 17:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A Good article?

Why isn't this a featured article? It is not even nominated! At least mark this as a good article, this article is great. It just needs a little improvement to be good enough to be featured. Pseudoanonymous 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It was nominated at one time but there was a huge to-do list and/or list of objections--see the link in the box at the top of this page going to the peer review discussion. I haven't looked at the list lately to see whether we've gotten a lot closer; there's still a lot of stuff here that needs to be reorg'd & tied better with other related articles (e.g., huge section on dog breeds--I suspect that it needs to be summarized & most info put into dog breed article but I haven't done so yet). Elf | Talk 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dog Population

IMHO some statistical information about the average number of dogs per human should be in the article. 213.132.254.2 01:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Can you find a reliable source for such a number? Elf | Talk 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Main photo for article

It seems to me that the lab was selected because it's a very common dog breed and therefore one most commonly seen by people in many parts of the world. The point here isn't to be "unusual"; it's to illustrate the concept. Please discuss change here before doing it again. It's possible that it needs to be changed to some other illustration, perhaps one that's a superb example of a dog photo, but I'd like to see arguments why. Elf | Talk 23:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not convinced by the too common theory with the labrador as it isn't that common, indeed probably unknown in large parts of the world but nor do I think the labrador picture should ber changed as it illustrates the concept just fine, SqueakBox 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that was my bias speaking; I believe it's the most common in the US and very close to the top in the UK and I'm sorry I didn't do my research better beyond that. :-/ Elf | Talk 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)