Talk:Northern Inuit Dog
|This page was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northern Inuit Dog article.|
|WikiProject Dogs / Breeds||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I was just wondering why people keep editing my page when all the information I supply on it is accurate.
I already have a link to TIDA, so there is no need for another.
This site should give a true and unbiased description of the subject. A Northern Inuit Dog is a Northern Inuit dog irrespective of which club it's owner belongs to. The page appears to be an advertisement for the Northern Inuit Society. The Northern Inuit Society is not a controlling body regarding these dogs and links to any relevant sites should be included in order to let anyone researching these dogs access ALL information available.
I also feel that the photograph shown is a poor example of this breed and does not do justice to the Northern Inuit Dog.
I've been watching this page with great interest. I belived that the information given on this page was extreamly accurate. The Northern inuit society may not be a controling body but it has been holding records of Northern Inuit dogs registerd with it since at least 1993. If someone wants to register a litter of pups with THIS society then the dam and sire of those pups must also be on the societies register. This does not stop ANYONE from breeding ANY dogs they want and calling them Northern Inuits just as many litters of other dogs like German Shepherds, Labradors, Boarder Collies etc are bred without being registerd with bodies like the Kennel Club, these dogs are sold without a pedigree and their true history is not known.
The Northern Inuit Society does ensure that all dogs registered with it have an established pedigree and have not be out-crossed with other breeds. The Northern Inuit Society cannot have information of dogs that are not registered with it and consequently it cannot allow any resulting progeny of these dogs to be registered with it.
Many people will want to take this breed in their own direction and they are free to do so, but if this involves the use of other breeds then I feel it would be wrong to describe the resulting dogs as Northern Inuits. This is how the Utonagan became the fine dog it is today, but it is not a Northern Inuit.
As for the dog in the picture, it is obviously a juvenile and as such is not the best representation of what the dogs mature into.
As said previously this site should be an unbiased description of the subject and therefore may be the first picture of this breed that people will see. Therefore I think a more suitable photograph should be used i.e a mature and to standard dog to give the general public a good first impression.
Also this subject should be about the northern inuit dog and not the northern inuit society.
Do you assume that the president of the northern inuit society has been breeding and keeping records and giving pedigrees since 1993?
Please note the Inuit Dog Association does not out cross with any other breed of dog and keeps a true and accurate record of registered dogs.
First I want to say I agree wholeheartedly with Mark in all respects of his post.
The photograph of the NI on the page is of a 7 MONTH OLD PUP, no she isnt the best example of the breed as of yet but it is the only picture I could put on the site at the time as I do not have copyright to any pictures of adult NI's. I have now spoken to a friend and have been granted permission to use pictures of her NI's to put on this page, I shall edit the picture asap.
I do not understand why people keep removing the information I have put on Wiki regarding Utes and Tamaskans, it is a well established fact that these breeds are descended from NI's and there are numerous websites out there that have this information on them, it is not inaccurate information I have supplied so why remove it?
The site is not a advertisement for the NIS, it is about the Northern Inuit dog and I want to keep it that way. The only reason I created this page is because everyone was being redirected to Utonagon's when searching for NI's and I wanted to rectify this problem. I have placed links to Utes, Tamaskans and The Inuit Dog Association on this page, so I feel I am providing enough information for people to conduct thier own research on the various breeds.
Colin, I am not being biased in my links I have provided, since I have already added a link to TIDA!!!
The policy of this site is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. Therefore would you please stop deleting external links to other relevant sites concerning northern inuit dogs.
Kylie will you please stick to the rules of this site and stop trying to say that northern inuit dogs are ruled by the northern inuit society. This is far from the truth. Nobody is trying to delete the northern inuit society links etc so why are you removing everything else. The northern inuit dog is represented by more than one club at the moment as you know so why keep trying to alter the fact?
Its common knowledge that the president of the NIS is also the founder of the breed, so even if, as you suggest, records have not been kept from that period then there would be no one else with more information regarding the dogs used at that time or before.
You seem to be pro TIDA, I don't have anything against the association as such but the following quote from the front page of the TIDA website slightly disturbs me.
"The Inuit Dog Association is unique in keeping to the original brief, using Northern breeds and breeding for temperament and health, as well as looks."
I thought that the NI was already established and further use of "Northern breeds" was no longer needed and have not been used for many years. If TIDA is using other breeds then the resulting dogs could not be NI's, only NI crosses.
I don't recall saying that Northern Inuit dogs are ruled by the Northern Inuit society and it is not stated that they are on the page I have created.
All I have stated is that TIDA have split from the NIS and formed thier own group, which as far as I am aware is the truth.
I did not state that they formed thier own breed, I was refering to Utes and Tamaskans in that phrase.
I said that dogs bred by these groups cannot be REGESTERED as NI's with the Northern Inuit Society, thus I am adhering to the rules!
What is this really about? Seriously, the TIDA link is on, the NIS link is on, Colin are you determined to spoil the enjoyment of these lovely dogs and their breed? Why are you mud slinging? Please for the love of God stop trying to ruin it for everyone!!
I am new to the breed and I don't care who's said what and who did what, we're not kids. People are going to come on this site to find out more about OUR breed of dog, it doesn't belong to anyone except every single owner NIS or TIDA who has a dog, and people are going to come here and read the filth you are writing and people bickering like children. Its ridiculous!
I have heard very negative things said about the chair person of TIDA which I won't repeat because I'm above it, and now your saying negative things about NIS chair person, if you spent as much time advertising the breed as you do trying to claim ownership of it, this breed would be as popular as a Lab, Alsation or any other popular breed.
Please stop trying so hard to fill this with negativity, no one stopped you putting the information on the Wikopedia, someone else thought of it and did it and now you want to drag them down for "the wrong picture" "information" why don't you try congradulating them on their proactive gesture to promote the breed....?
Well said Natalie, it makes me wonder whether Colin is the persons real name.
A lot of the discussion on this page is related more to the politics of the breed than the actual article on wikipedia. I think the article is very nice and shows the breed in a good light. Lets leave it that way. I think people keep removing the Ute and Tam links because they don't want those breeds to take any of the glory from this article on NI's, there is lots of jealousy throughout the NI, Utes and Tams.
Actually the information about the tamaskan in the article is untrue. the Tamaskan did not make a split from the Northern Inuit at all, they used Northern Inuit, Utonagan, Siberian huskies and husky crosses to produce a new breed. They only used approx 10 Northern Inuit and Utonagan according to their wikipedia page(so for arguments sake lets say 5 of those dogs were NI)I don't think that 5 NI makes them a 'spin off breed' like the Utonagan were. Perhaps that sentence needs re-wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose that as the Utonagan began as a split off from the Northern Inuit dogs then, in some eyes, the originally registered Tamaskan dogs could also be seen as a "split off".
- In the period between 2002 and 2006 all registered Tamaskans were a blend of Utonagan and Northern Inuits(or so the Tamaskan Wiki page would suggest) which both share the same origin.--Onefivenine (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That is very true, perhaps all 10 could be counted as NI, but the breed as it is now has a very small percentage of NI or Utongan in it, to say it is a spin off would be wrong because many other dogs were used in the creation. I think the way I have now worded it on the article sounds better and more truthful--Exhaustfumes (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please remember that untill two years ago all Tamaskans were a NI/Ute mix, and the breed register (also two years old) has registered dogs born over the past six years as Tamaskans. This would suggest that there are many more registered Tamaskans that are purely NI/Ute mixes (nothing wrong with that) and that many new litters would also be of this make up. I would be interested to find out if this is not the case, as that would mean that all Tamaskans over two years old have been culled and that all preasent day Tamaskans have been bred from dogs well under the age of two.--Onefivenine (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what your going on about. But the article still mentions NI as being part of the creation of the Tamaskan, what more do you want? This is a discussion board about the NI article not the Tamaskan and personally I think the article is worded correctly the way I have done it, but I will leave it up to discussion.--Exhaustfumes (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Was just pointing out how the previous wording of this wiki page could be seen as correct.
- It is obvious that the Tamaskan breed has a high percentage of Northern Inuit blood, this is something to celebrate, not deny. I suppose that a persons perception of what a Tamaskan is, is dependent upon at what point they see the Tamaskan as a separate breed. In my opinion this happened shortly after the first mixing of Northern Inuit and Utonagan lines in or around 2002. At this point Northern Inuit would have been highly evident in the emerging breed.
- Finnish husky blood has only been added in the last couple of years, the effect this has had on the Tamaskan breed cannot have been fully consolidated, and will not have sufficiently diluted the NI and Utonagan blood to justify saying that the Tamaskan dog contains only a small percentage of these bloodlines.--Onefivenine (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I own a Tamaskan and the only pure northern inuit's in her pedigree are 5 generations back. The rest of her pedigree consists of Utonagan, pure tamaskan or finnish huskies therefore only a small percentage of her is pure Northern inuit therefore she is not a 'spin off' Northern inuit but a seperate breed and therefore I believe the wording in the article to be correct.
They are not a spin off breed because other dogs were used other than Northern inuit and Utonagan, but you seem to still want to count the Utonagan as being Northern inuit in the tamaskan pedigrees. Perhaps you shouldn't write in the Northern inuit article that you count the Utonagan as a seperate breed as you obviously don't. There is no other way that you could word the article and tell the truth than the way it is already written. It states that Northern inuit were used in the creation and that is perfectly true it is a sentence down from the spin off breeds (because they aren't) it would be wrong to start quoting the percentage of Northern Inuit that is in the Tamaskan Dog as this is the Northern Inuit article not the Tamaskan one. And if that is the case then the utonagan and british inuit could be explained better as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, if your dog has a five generation pedigree, at what point in that pedigree are dogs considered Tamaskans? As I understand it the breed was created about six years ago and most dog breeders breed from animals over the age of two, this would mean that (assuming a minimum generation age of two) they couldn't all be registered Tamaskans.
- Secondly, I do consider the Utonogan as a seperate breed just like the Tamaskan. They are not the same but had the same origins.
- Thirdly, I have never said that the article is incorrectly worded, I have only tried to illustrate how the previous wording of this Wiki page could also be seen as correct.
- Yes the Utonogan is a "spin off" from the Northern Inuit. The Utonogan breeders had a different view of what their dogs should look like and so formed a different breed club and made a new breed standard.
- This is very similar to the way that the Tamaskan appears to have been produced, someone who owned Northern Inuit's and Utonogans had a different view of what the dogs should be like and so embarked on their breeding program.
- For the first four of the last six years that breeding program appears to have used only Northern Inuit's, Utonogans and the progeny of these dogs.
- Please stop being so defensive, I am not falsifying anything, nor am I saying anything derogatory about the Tamaskan dogs. The majority of my knowledge of Tamaskans has come, in one way or another, through the Tamaskan Wikipedia page or Google.
- I should do some more research, and with this in mind will contact the Tamaskan, Utonogan and Northern Inuit breed registers. I could never know as much about these dogs as the people who run the various breed clubs and registers. --Onefivenine (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am fed up of arguing when their seems to be no end. We both agree that the way the article is written looks fine. You are just picking at the details when really there is no need and this really isn't the place for it, it does not need to be written into the article. Btw your first question is answered in my last post anyway.
I have a pedigree in front of me here. Both parents are pure tamaskan all four grandparents are pure Tamaskan. 7 out of the 8 great grandparents are either pure or foundation tamaskan, the other 1 is a Utonagan. 5 out of the 16 great great grandparents are foundation tamaskan, 4 are finnish huskies, 4 are Utonagan and 3 are Northern inuit. So out of the 30 dogs that are in the 4 generation pedigree only 3 are pure Northern Inuit.
This litter has not yet been born (planned for Oct 08) but when it is it will be a 3rd generation litter of pure Tamaskan dogs verified by DNA profiling. the TDR does not allow dogs to be bred under 18months of age, but I know that a lot of the finnish huskies were purchased at the ages of 2-5 and could be used for breeding immediately which could explain your confusion.
If you want this explained in even better detail then perhaps you should talk to me on my own talk page, if you click on my name (exhaustfumes) you will be taken to my page and I will try and help you more. Exhaustfumes 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will talk to you on you page when I have finished speaking to the breed registers (have already conversed with one of these).
- There is something you could clear up for me from your last post, what exactly is a foundation Tamaskan? is it a mix of NI and Ute or is it one of the 10 original NI/Ute dogs used to create the Tamaskans? Also it would be better to use the pedigree of a current pup as an example not the pedigree of a litter that will not be born for another eight months.
- As for picking at details, it is important that Wiki pages are accurate. In my opinion this page was correct, in yours it was not so you picked at the details and changed it. I have not changed it back only questioned why you made the change, and tried to point out why in my view it was already correct.--Onefivenine (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The article as it was worded before was incorrect, it stated that Over the years various people have split from the Northern Inuit Society and formed their own groups, these include the The Inuit Dog Association, the Utonagan and the Tamaskan. The Tamaskan has never split from the Northern Inuit Society, the Tamaskan Dog at no point ever had anything to do with the NI society so how could you think this was already correct? The way it is worded now is correct.
The pedigree was just one that I had on hand at the time, i am in the middle of moving house. I will look forward to hearing from you on my page. Exhaustfumes 11:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The image in the infobox is from here, where it is clearly identified as a Northern Inuit Dog. If you don't like the image, feel free to provide another one or take one yourself- the standard for dog article pictures is to use an image of a stacked animal facing left without humans in the image, when it is available. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)