From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Dog was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dogs (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Mammals (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Citizendium Porting    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article has an assessment summary page.

"Citing" vs. "According to"; 2008 info vs. 2015 info[edit]

I've unreverted the reversion of my tweaking "According to" to "Citing". My unrevert flouts WP:BRD, but it would be both incorrect and nonsensical to say, "According to a 2008 study, the [CDC] estimated in 2015 ...". The sentence as it stands, though, is overly complicated and its focus on the figure reported in 2015 by the CDC being a figure from a 2008 study is a bit off the point of the section. Perhaps the initial sentence (and the CDC cite) ought to simply be removed in favor of the second sentence giving info based on a cited 2015 study. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I like using the CDC as a ref, as it makes the material in the study more easily verifiable. However, I don't believe the CDC needs to be mentioned in the body of text in the article. I'm indifferent on if the study and CDC are combined in a single ref or are listed separately. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dogs can talk[edit]

Could someone please add the fact dogs have been shown to be capable of reproducing human speech to the article, because for some reason I can't edit it.

Sources:, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Youtube sources are not considered as suitable sources. This should not be added.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this then?

Also, how come I can't edit the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally will not make the edit because the dog is not talking, it is simply making a noise that some people believe sounds like human speech. I think you can not make an edit because the article is semi-protected. This means that only people with a user-name can make an edit.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This article in particular is semi-protected so that vandals - or well intentioned but uninitiated people like yourself - cannot make edits as they please. DrChrissy is correct in that you need to cite sources, refer to Wikipedia policy WP:CITE. You have found something on the web that has attracted your attention but it needs some scientific basis that you can cite to support what you are saying. A search-engine will find that for you if you try, something like this Scientific American article: It is not about blocking people, it is about process.
Now you have two choices (1) ask someone like me to make the edit on your behalf, or (2) if you have a pet topic that you have a passion for, why not get a login as a Wikipedia editor and make a start on something of interest. It is more productive, creative and intellectually rewarding than watching TV, you will meet - and argue with - some interesting people from around the globe, but I warn you now that it can become a time-consuming hobby. To get started, people will help you on the Talk Pages if you ask - the world is listening. How would you like to proceed? Regards, William Harristalk • 10:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

How would I go about getting a consensus on whether or not to include these links ( and No scientific website seems to cover these, yet they both seem too critical pieces of information to simply exclude from this article. Additionally, there are plenty of non-scientific references in this article, and no one seems to be intent on removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talkcontribs) 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You may want to propose a different summary, if it is not fully confirmed yet, we shall still state and credit the actual research. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello SQMeaner, I am glad that you got a login, and this is the place to get consensus. (When you posted this, many hundreds of people around the world that have a "watch" in place on this page were alerted. Most will not have in interest in the subject of dog communication and therefore will not resond. Others will respond over the next week or so when they have the time.) You are correct when you say that "there are plenty of non-scientific references in this article" and we have to make a start somewhere, which is why my colleague OccultZone directed you to this page.
I suggest we start by giving the reader some context, and the Scientific American article I cited above helps, where the noted Professor of Animal Behavior Stanley Coren says: Owner hears the dog making a sound that resembles a phrase, says the phrase back to the dog, who then repeats the sound and is rewarded with a treat. Eventually the dog learns a modified version of her original sound. Dogs have limited vocal imitation skills, so these sounds usually need to be shaped by selective attention and social reward. In a video, a pug says, 'I love you' and it's very cute, but the pug has no idea what it means. "If dogs could talk, they would tell you, 'I'm just in it for the cookies." The pug citation could be dropped in after the 'I love you'. The husky after 'cookies'. The Scientific American citation would go in at the end of the paragraph. This would link some interesting, although questionable to some, footage with what a reputable source says. What is already there on the Dog page could be pushed down to the second paragraph. The important thing to come out of this is that although it is not talking, it certainly is communicating. Your thoughts please?William Harristalk • 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that any of these edits are made on the Talking animal page. This has the space and material to make a critical appraisal of "talking". The Dog article could contain a very brief summary with a link such as Talking animal#Dog.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Very well. If it's alright with everyone, I'm going to go with this.SQMeaner (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a very good suggestion. I note that the videos discussed here are already cited there. Regards, William Harristalk • 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
undid the recent addition. Yes, dogs and other animals can be trained to mimic human words. However, America's Funniest Videos and youtube stuff aren't WP:RS for this article. Vsmith (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
How so? I've been looking over the rules and nothing I did seemed to be in violation of them. Could you please go into detail on why you think my edit deserved to be undone?SQMeaner (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Vsmith I do not believe that you should be stopping SQMeaner from adding a link to another page on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with the quality of the other page then you have my best wishes in amending that other page and improving its quality. Yes, WP:RS does state that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources", but my view on Talking animal#Dog is that these examples are used for illustrative purposes only, the main thrust of page is not based on them. (Although it could do with some further work.) SQMeaner there is a page on Dog communication which might be of interest to you. I look forward to the comments from others. Regards, William Harristalk • 08:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Er ... an unsourced one liner: There is some evidence dogs are able to imitate human vocalisations (see above). with a see also link to talking animal which was added to the start of the first paragraph of the communications section simply won't fly. It wasn't just adding a link to the see also section. That dogs can be trained to mimic human words is related to their intelligence and a bit about that could be added to the intelligence and behavior section if backed with WP:reliable sources. You suggested Dog communication page might be another possibility - although I'm not sure being trained to mimic human words is true communication. Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You removed more than just the first sentence, you could have left the link. The short sentence only needs the Scientific American reference I mentioned above added on the end, then it flies very well. I have also made an introduction to the Talking animal#Dog item to give it context. However, we shall see what others think. Regards, William Harristalk • 11:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes a bit about mimicing human words could be added to the communications or intelligence sections based on the Sci Am reference would work. Sorry I overlooked that earlier (I plead 5 AM lack of caffein for that :). Vsmith (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note regarding Youtube items. I study animal behaviour as a profession and enjoy writing about this on WP. Very often, a video is the best way of describing a behaviour so I find it rather frustrating when editors state that ALL Youtube videos are not allowed. I have used Youtube articles in the past when these present a behaviour that is either not reported or the written source is unreliable. For example, I posted a link to video on the Tool use by animals page to show a crow toboggoning down a snowy roof! So long as the description is objective and not open to interpretation, some Youtube videos are a suitable source. Unfortunately, in the current context, Talking dogs, they are usually not reliable. These videos usually have the owner suggesting what the dog is saying. If you can listen to the dog without such prompting, it is often impossible to understand what the dog is supposedly uttering.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better to link directly to the youtube videos showing the dogs making vocalisations or to articles (secondary sources) describing them, like the dailymail article linked to above?SQMeaner (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
These particular videos are poor quality, meant solely for humor, and aren't close to the threshold of being reliable sources. If you can find better sources, then the mention of imitating human sounds may be appropriate, but these particular videos aren't really usable from an encyclopedic standpoint. I notice you are also inserting the videos into Talking animal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and using that as a coatrack to add mentions into Dog communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (at least without the videos at that one). You are also in violation of WP:3RR in this article, which can result in your account being blocked. The quality of the material is clearly in dispute, get consensus before adding them again. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Where did you get the impression the videos are meant 'solely for humor'? Also, what makes you think they're not 'reliable sources'? What rule in particular do you think the references I have posted have violated? I'm sorry if I violated the 3-revert rule. I'm just getting a little tired of people constantly undoing my edits without bothering to discuss them on the talk pages.SQMeaner (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this time the sources were updated to web articles about the YouTube videos. The website articles are still shaky as far as WP:RS is concerned, but I'm reverting my most recent revert so that these can get discussed further on the talk page here. To me, the HuffingtonPost article is trivial material beyond the video itself, and not meeting WP:RS. The DailyMail article at least provides some context and background, so is borderline to me. I would like to hear other opinions on that one.
As to "Where did you get the impression the videos are meant 'solely for humor'", the one video is in YouTube's category "Comedy", and the HuffingtonPost coverage of that same video is in the "Comedy" section of their website. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I posted the wrong video, but this link ( which is the original video of the dog saying what sounds to me like 'no' is posted in the 'pets and animals' category on youtube, not humour. The video which is posted in the 'comedy' category is the one with the dog saying what sounds to me like 'hello', but just because it's classified as comedy doesn't make it an unreliable source. I'm sure to most people it sounds like the dog is saying 'hello'. How you would verify this, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure most people would agree with me including it as proof dogs can imitate human vocalisations.SQMeaner (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
None of the links you have provided "prove" or purport to "prove" that dogs can imitate human speech. A dog making a vocalization that sounds roughly similar to human speech is not evidence of imitation. If you continue to push your point-of-view on this without providing a reliable source that backs up your assertion, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Do youtube and the daily mail and huffington post not count as a reliable sources? What would you say these videos ( and show? Is there any way I can get a third party involved to mediate this dispute?SQMeaner (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Your question about the sources has already been answered above by Barek. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me the biggest problem people have with the references I've posted is that they're not 'reliable'. Could either you or Barek please point out what rule or rules exactly on Wikipedia I have violated and why exactly you think the videos/articles I have posted are unreliable and not proof dogs can imitate human vocalisations as I believe neither of you have done this so far, despite my repeated attempts to get both of you to answer these questions. I also provided a rebuttal to Barek's response to my post, which he has yet to answer as of this edit. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could get an impartial third party involved to mediate this dispute, as I am wary of arguing with a Wikipedia administrator for obvious reasons. Finally, I've left a message for you on the talk page of the Dog Communication article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talkcontribs) 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
SQMeaner you appear to be new to Wikipedia, and your only error here was to rush ahead and make the change without waiting a couple of weeks before all interested parties had made their comments and a synthesis of ideas agreed - patience is the key. Your question on third party involvement was not answered: refer to content dispute. If you still wish to continue, read dispute resolution and if not satisfied Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Ask and ask for help at one of the relevant notice boards. That will be a slow and bureaucratic process and I would advise against continuing, because it may not go your way and there are plenty of other areas to improve. If you have a particular interest in human/dog communication, let me refer you to Dr Brian Hare and some of his more recent findings, little of which has made its way onto this page and someone needs to make a start on that. Don't let your first run-in with others deter you - they were once all new and have been there themselves, but appear to have forgotten. Regards, William Harristalk • 19:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors Vsmith, Barek, OhNoitsJamie and SQMeaner: You have not been asked to make a value judgment on whether you believe that dogs can mimic human vocalizations, nor if the citations were reliable. The footage is already cited on Talking animal#Dog and if you have issues with what is on that page then please feel free to action. Nobody is talking about citing them on the Dog page - I thought that was very clear from the first few comments here. You were asked if there should be a link from the Dog page to Talking animal#Dog. As yet, we have 3 in favor, 1 concerned about the lead-in sentence, and two that have positions as to what should be on another page. The consensus is currently 3:0 in favor with 1 seeking an appropriate lead-in sentence. Plus, it is way too early to be making any final decision, another week or so should do it. William Harristalk • 22:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The first few comments here were all about adding the mention and refs to this article; the suggestion to instead link to Talking animal wasn't made until two weeks after the initial post, and even then, the mention added to this article by SQMeaner today is still using the videos as refs in this article where the mention was added.
As to the other article, I note the only reason the videos are posted there is because SQMeaner had initially also added the videos to that article as well as to this article. It makes sense to have a centralized discussion of the links, rather than fragmenting the discussion into multiple threads on multiple boards. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the current content on Talking animal#Dog. My issue was with the sentence "There is some evidence dogs can imitate human vocalisations" being added to Dog and Dog communication, as it's misleading and an oversimplification of what the the Scientific American article says. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I look forward to Barek's amendments on the Talking animal#Dog article and then the matter is ended, from my point of view. However, I have not yet seen any evidence of anyone volunteering to make these amendments. My position was to see a new editor treated fairly and with some sensitivity, and perhaps even some guidance. Who knows what contributions they might make to Wikipedia in the future, if they are not put of initially. William Harristalk • 01:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what "amendments" you are suggesting, William Harris.
The current version of this article still has the problematic wording, and the current version still uses the disputed refs. So your comment above that "Nobody is talking about citing them on the Dog page" is incorrect. Is it safe to interpret your comments to be that you support removing those refs from this article? What of the wording in this article? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
My sincere apologies to both of you - I have not yet received the email that informs me that SQMeaner had recently posted to the Dog page!! I have just read the edits based on your comment, and cannot believe it! Over to you, Administrators. William Harristalk • 02:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks William Harris, I was getting confused on the comments. I had initially reverted the most recent post by SQMeaner, but then had reverted myself to get further input on this talk page.
Ohnoitsjamie, do you have a suggestion on the phrasing that would be more in-line with the Scientific American article? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was still there either, and have removed it. It is WP:UNDUE weight to suggest that dogs can vocalize like humans on this page because of the existence of a handful of cute videos. It's already covered in Talking Animals, which is linked to Dog communication. This reminds of of a similar situation where on editor had an obsession about posting whether a crocodile or tiger would win in a fight in various articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Barek and OhNoitsJamie. We were talking at crossed purposes and I caused the confusion. I thought that you both were just adding a your comments and I did not realize that it was in response to further attempted edits. When I said above to SQMeaner that "...your only error here was to rush ahead and make the change without waiting..." I was referring to the edit reversed earlier by Vsmith and was not aware of your later reversals. I do not have a watch on the Dog communication page and was not aware of the efforts going on there. Once again, my apologies. I will have no more to do with this "entity". Regards, William Harristalk • 04:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
(outdent) Sorry for the misunderstanding! Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015[edit]

Very tiny point; in the "Early roles" section:

They would have benefited from humans' upright gait that gives them larger range over which to see potential predators and prey, as well as color vision that, at least by day, gives humans better visual discrimination.[37] Camp dogs would also have benefitted from human tool use, as in bringing down larger prey and controlling fire for a range of purposes

It would be as well to spell the word the same way on each occasion. (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dogs to replace sat nav...[edit]

"Dogs prefer, when they are off the leash and Earth's magnetic field is calm, to urinate and defecate with their bodies aligned on a north-south axis.[196]" Whoever added this failed to mention that such alignment occasionally causes the excrement to land on locked Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to counter the one given in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Observation provides the proof, no matter how unusual this may sound. William Harristalk • 10:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it was me that added the source. The IP should look at the magnetoception article; it is full of (surprising) examples.DrChrissy (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


I think that there should be something about dog crossbreeds. You know, like Labradoodles, Puggles, Labradingers, etc. DogLover 123

You will find them under List of dog crossbreeds. Regards, William Harristalk • 09:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)