Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Dispute(s)

(*Note to NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, AND ISSDC contributors: Please advise if you concur or disagree with my summaries below):

From everything I have read, it would appear, as evidenced throughout this talk page AND the article edit page, contributors representing the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC registries/clubs, have agreed/compromised/concurred regarding the following:

1)They have agreed/compromised to the inclusion of ALL currently established registries/clubs affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd dog, including the ISSR/SSDCA as an acknowledged Shiloh Shepherd registry/club in the article.

2)They have agreed/compromised that the article contain an acknowledgement that Ms. Barber initiated this breed and originated the standard for the breed.

3)They concur that the article content must contain "verifiable" documentation, not based on "original" research and stated only from a "neutral point of view", in agreement with Wikipedia's stated requirements for content criteria. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria)

4)They have agreed/compromised, in order to resolve this dispute and prevent potential for unverifiable, dependent, biased inclusions/comparisons/contrasts by any registry/club, including their own, to refrain from including any registry/club specific information and promotion in the article, other than to cite the existence and names of each, and to simply include ALL registry's/club's homepage website links at the bottom of the article, which will allow Wikipedia readers the opportunity to gain access, should they choose, to each of the various registries'/clubs' individual purported documentation, research, and points of view.

5)They concur that the article should NOT contain original publication of "original thought", "propaganda", "advocacy", "self-promotion", and "advertising", in agreement with Wikipedia's stated requirements for "Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine).

6)They have agreed/compromised, in order to resolve this dispute and prevent inclusion of these disallowed contents by any registry/club, including their own, to refrain from including any registry/club specific information and promotion in the article, other than to cite the existence and names of each, and to simply include ALL registry's/club's homepage website links at the bottom of the article, which will allow Wikipedia readers the opportunity to gain access, should they choose, to each of the various registries'/clubs' individual thoughts, propaganda, advocacy, self-promotion, and advertising.

7)In order to resolve this dispute and prevent bias regarding the article's descriptive contents concerning "Health", they have agreed/compromised to refrain from including any statements citing, reviewing, or comparing/contrasting ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, SSDCA, or ISSDC health practices/policies and they propose the "Health" section of the article contain only a statement listing those health issues acknowledged by ALL registries/clubs (gastrointestinal problems -gastric torsion/bloat, bacterial overgrowth syndrome- and skeletal or bone disorders such as hip dysplasia, panosteitis and osteochondritis), a recommendation by ALL registries/clubs that testing be conducted and a statement that "these reports clearly show that, as giant breeds go, the Shiloh is arguably a healthy example".

8)They have agreed/compromised that regarding "Size", "Coat", "Color", and "Temperament", there appears to be very limited dispute re: the "standards" contained therein and that the section should remain free of any statements citing, reviewing, promoting any individual registry/club and comparing/contrasting one registry/club with another.

These compromises and requested article inclusions/exclusions meet Wikipedia's policies/procedures for content criteria, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria) in that they embrace the following:

1) Neutral(WP:NPOV)in that the article would be "representing all views fairly and without bias" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). In FACT, there are no requests from the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC registries/clubs for the inclusion of any comparisons/contrasts (negative or otherwise) between any of the registries/clubs, including the ISSR/SSDCA, nor have they requested that any clubs other than their own, be exluded from inclusion in the article. In FACT, there has only been the request that ALL registries/clubs affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd dog be simply noted, with appropriate website links included at the bottom of the article. This is as "neutral" as an article contribution can get, according to any standards.

2)No Original Research(WP:PNOR). In FACT, there are no requests from any of the registries/clubs of the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC for Wikipedia's acknowledgement or inclusion of any "original research", whether it be their own or that of the ISSR/SSDCA. Again, they are simply asking that the the existence of ALL registries affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd dog be noted, with appropriate website links included at the bottom of the article.

3)Verifiability (WP:V) In FACT, there are no legal governing bodies that allow/prevent the establishment of a dog registry or club. And yes, anyone can legally establish a dog registry/club, as evidenced by the establishment of all of those involved with the Shiloh Shepherd dog (ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC AND SSDCA). Simply put, they EXIST and they do so legally, as allowed by established U.S. law. Now, there are national/international organizations in place (AKC, UKC, FCI etc...), some of whom are registries and/or clubs in and of themselves, that have chosen to "acknowledge" some other registries/clubs. Because of their renown, an endorsement from another well-know, considerd reputable organizations tends to add positively to the reputation of that more newly established registry/club.

Nevertheless, NONE of these recognized independent bodies have the legal power or authority to secure or prevent the establishment or existence of these registries/clubs.

Most importantly, for purposes of discussion here, NONE have decided to to "acknowledge" or "endorse" any one of the Shiloh Shepherd existing registries/clubs (ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC or SSDCA) over any of the others at this time. So, its a moot point...even if they could or do...they haven't!

Consequently, in the absence of an independent, verifiable organization's "seal of approval", the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC has agreed to acknowledge the existence of all of these registries/clubs (including an agreement/compromise that the ISSR/SSDCA be mentioned in the article as the "first" established chronologically), but not a "rating system", whereby any one registry/club proclaims its self to be exclusive, superior, approved, or official over any other registry/club.

Jareth, to accomplish your request that everyone demonstrate good faith, and since resolution requires either a willingness to negotiate on the parts of all parties involved or a stalemate, I think we would all appreciate if the contributors representing the ISSR/SSDCA would now affirm whether or not they are willing to negotiate with the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC contributors and are willing to offer any compromises or agreements in order to reach consensus. We sure would appreciate if you would ask them to respond, because without that commitment, this debate really has no where to go at this point, other than to a "judge" who can review the merits of each sides' views and make a determination as to how this article is going to finally appear. Thank you. M. Dùfy

Straw Poll

Please review the proposal Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog#Dispute(s). I'd like to take a quick survey of the people involved in the page since no direct comments on the proposal have been received. Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

Support all points

Support all points 66.188.54.68Suzy Graham, Tantara Shiloh Shepherds66.188.54.68

69.173.135.114Miles D.

Support All Points, JudyShilohshepherd

NobleAcres Gloria

Support all points ShenandoahShilohs 13:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dartagnan

Support all Points. Wendy Fullerton Windsong Kennels/Raid the Wind Kennels. I have been involved with Shiloh Shepherds from the beginning plus two years previous while they were still registered as German Shepherds. WindsongKennels 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Support all Points. Diane K. McClure, Raid the Wind Kennels. Raid the Wind Kennels 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Support all Points. Becky Althoff Gateway/Catoctin Shiloh Shepherds since 1996. Iamgateway

Support all Points. Gwyllgi 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Support all points. See comments below. Elf | Talk 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Elf: May I ask if you are one of the people affiliated with the "WikiProject Dog breeds" that Jareth has requested as an outside, unaffiliated (w/Shiloh Shepherds) observer to comment on this discussion? 69.173.135.114 08:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Miles

Yes (see my note posted below under "Discussion"). So is Trysha. You can find both of our names in the history pages of many many dog breed articles, mine since January '04 and Trysha not quite as long. Elf | Talk 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Support all Points. PJBJ

Support all points. I concur with Elf below - Trysha ^(talk) 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Trysha: May I ask if you are also one of the people that Jareth has requested as an outside, unaffiliated (w/Shiloh Shepherds) observer to comment on this discussion? 69.173.135.114 08:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Miles

(She is--see my response above--but I'm sure she'll respond, too. :-) Elf | Talk 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

Suppport all points. Trevor.sawler 14:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Support all points. ShilohSupporter 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Support all points. 12.41.65.74

Strongly Support all points. Dullpine

Support All Points and for listing the registries Jareth suggested. 205.188.116.136

Support some, but not all points

I believe the "other" clubs/registeries should have the real reasons for their formation and/or split from the ISSR listed. It is my opinion that the public has a right to know why they are not willing to follow the original plan in developing the Shiloh Shepherd. Tony Matzke 04:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reject all points

I'm not quite sure just how we're suppose to vote here, so I will say it again. The ISSR is the ONLY organization that can hand out valid Shiloh Shepherd papers. If your getting your papers from anywhere else the dog could be anything else. I reject these and any other registry other than ISSR. 67.186.153.43 11:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Katy Schuele

AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE. I MUST REJECT ALL POINTS. 67.141.45.154 19:41, 
28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

I have stated MY points many times over!! Please review my posts [[User:Tina M. Barber|Tina M. Barber]

I have been reading the multitude of various statements made very carefully and feel it unnessary for me to rehash the various points so I now simply wish to add my agreement with all of Tina Barber's points in this matter. As Tina Barber is unquestionably the original and only founder of the true Shiloh Shepherd, I feel that her obvious knowledge and sincere concern for the specific standards and manner in continuing developement of the Shiloh Shepherd as a breed should be respected. Nancy Tisci, TiAmo Desert Mountain Shilohs in AZ.

Discussion

---Per your question below (Jareth asked: Also, are't the registries currently listed only registering Shilo Shepherds, or am I reading incorrectly?), you are correct and I propose that ONLY these registries/clubs limited to the registration of Shiloh Shepherds be included, that is NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC, ISSR, and SSDCA. 69.173.135.114Miles D.

I think that EACH registry willing to issue papers for the Shiloh Shepherd should be included!! Tina M. Barber

I believe the article is about Shiloh Shepherds, thus the listing of the Shiloh specific registries who's sole function is the Shiloh Shepherd Breed. I have no issue with listing the ISSR as the first of these registries. 152.163.100.132 14:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)ShenandoahShilohs 14:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Shiloh Shepherd registries include the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and the ISSR. All these registries share the same Shiloh Shepherd ancestry as developed by Tina Barber. The NSBR, TSSR and SSBA were developed by former ISSR breeders which chose to leave the ISSR organization, primarily not because they want to breed away from the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard, but because they could not longer work with the ISSR's leader. Many of the dogs registered currently with the non-ISSR registries were once fully recognized and registered Original ISSR Shiloh Shepherds. It was only after their owners departed the ISSR organization that these same dogs were declared non-Shilohs and not worthy of the name "Shiloh Shepherd". To take it even one step further, there have been littermates declared as either an Original ISSR Shiloh Shepherd (as this owner was part of the ISSR organization) or a non-Shiloh mutt (as this owner declined to be part of her organization).

Therefore, it is only fair that all the Shiloh Shepherd registries be listed as part of this article. For the purposes of this article, I feel this list should concentrate primarily on the registries which focus on this breed and not every dog registry in the world that will accept the breed. I'm sorry, I forgot to hit the sign code for the previous post Dartagnan

THANKS TO THE WIKI, I AM WORKING ON ANOTHER *BIG* WEB ARTICLE, SOME OF THIS WILL ALSO BE PUBLISHED IN A MAG!! I THINK THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH!! PLEASE LOOK AT http://www.shilohshepherds.info/originalISSRrules.htm If you read this & the ISSR rules carefully, dogs that do NOT meet the specific requirements set by the ISSR cannot get BREEDING PAPERS ... PERIOD!! Dogs that are AKC GSD's cannot get ISSR papers making them *INSTANT* Shiloh Shepherds ... DOGS RESCUED FROM SHELTERS CANNOT BECOME "SHILOHS" AND BE BRED!! Get it?? That's why the ISSR rules are so hard to follow .. but without them .. all you have is a GSD MIX!! PERIOD!! Tina M. Barber 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we calm down please? What on earth does this have to do with the registries? I'm especially curious since a number of them you recently provided for inclusion offer papers to any dog as long as a veterinarian states their breed. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, atleast they ask a vet for proof .. what proof do the "other" registries use? I don't have time to play games here .. but from what they say on their OWN websites ... ANY DOG FROM THE *SHEPHERD* FAMILY CAN GET PAPERS .... FOR A PRICE THAT IS!!! You call this a "breed" "registry"??? Tina M. Barber 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

FROM WIKIPEDIAS POINT THEY MUST TRY TO ALLOW THE MOST ACCURATE INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE,
IN THEIR ARTICLES. RIGHTLY SO. THE PUBLIC COMES TO THEM FOR HONEST ACCURATE INFORMATION. 
WHERE WE THEN CAN PONDER AND MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES.
A) ONLY THE ISSR SHOULD BE LISTED. WHY? THEY HAVE THE 
1) HISTORY
2) DOCUMENTATION ON RECORD WITH THE TCCP IN TEXAS
3) ACCURATE DATA ON THOUSANDS OF SHILOH SHEPHERDS. 
   INCLUDING GSDS WHOM WERE USED IN THE FOUNDATION 
   OF BUILDING THE SHILOH SGEPHERD
4) ONGOING GENETIC HEALTH SURVEYS GOING BACK MANY MANY YEARS
  
B)IF YOU ALLOW ANY OTHER REGISTRIES TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED, THEN WIKIPEDIA IS CONTRIBUTING 
  TO THE FRAUDULENT DECEPTION OF THE PUBLIC. IS THE DOG BEING REGISTERED SOMEWHERE OTHER
  THAN WITH THE ISSR, A REAL SHILOH SHEPHERD? OR A GSD MIX? 
  YOU CANNOT BE SURE WITHOUT ACCURATE DATA OVER TIME. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS WIKIPEDIA, IN   
  RESEARCH, EXACT ACCURACY CANNOT ALWAYS BE ATTAINED. WHAT DOES THE MEDICAL FIELD DO AS AN  
  EXAMPLE? RESEARCH DATA OVER TIME. ASTUTE RECORD KEEPING. ONLY THE ISSR HAS THAT.

C)IF BY SOME MISTAKE THE WIKIPEDIA ALLOWS OTHER REGISTRIES TO BE LISTED IN THEIR ARTICLE,
  THEY MIGHT AS WELL LIST THEM ALL.

67.141.45.154 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

Behind all of the posts, there are really two main issues. The first, is the Shiloh Shepherd a Breed of dog? I think it has clearly been proven that with every Rare Breed Show organization accepting them as a Breed, as well as all health organizations, all National Canine Magazines, and the general public, that issue should not even be an issue. Second issue; Is the ISSR the only registry? Obviously that is not the case. Since 1991 Barber sold these dogs to the general public as a Breed of dog. They were advertized by her as well as many other breeders through the years as a Breed of Dog. The Shilohs were deemed public domain as a Breed of Dog by the US Patent and Trade Mark office. As a Bred of dog, the general public has the legal right to do what they want with them. Once Barber stopped selling the dogs as Shiloh kennles German Shepherds and called them a new Breed, she no longer had the legal right to mandate what others did with the Shiloh Shepherds that they purchased. Through the years for what ever reasons, other Shiloh Shepherd specific Registries were formed and are operating, period. Since 1997 the ISSR is not the only Shiloh Shepherd Registry.

If Barber had continued to sell a line of German Shepherds from her kennel then maybe there would be an arguement. Since this is not what she did, and choose to seek Breed status, and thus named them Shiloh Shepherd, all of the rest is a moot point.

We could go all day on what registry has the most dogs, or who is better, but that has no berring on this article.

This dispute has been going on for years, and I am sure will continue, and will never be resolved as to some it is personal. This article is to be about the dogs, it is not to glorify any one person or registry. Each has there own links and with those links the general public can be educated and make thier own determination as to what they want.

ShenandoahShilohs

The dog-breeds project has dealt often with newer & minor breeds in contention, and we have consistently arrived at the conclusion that, to present information in an NPOV manner, articles must address the fact that there is contention but in as simple a way as possible--e.g., "ISSD claims to be the only legitimate registry for SSDs, but other registries dispute this." (Or whatever the summary is.) It's a fact, hence it's not debatable. I think your proposed list addresses this, but I felt it was worth stating again. Elf | Talk 02:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

CORRECTION!!! The ISSR (not issd) IS the ONLY RECOGNIZED registry, as per ARBA http://www.arba.org/ShilohShepherd1BS.htm NPOV The "others" only exist in their *own* minds, and on their *own* websites .. now THAT should be looked upon as THEIR POV!!! PERIOD! Tina M. Barber 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What does showing dogs in the ARBA with the standard created by your registry have to do with whether or not the other registries exist? Are we to assume that ARBA also issues registrations for Shilohs? There is an overwhelming consensus to include the other registries in this article. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Article content

Personally I think the article is good as written now.

I have reviewed the article content per Sandra's suggestiosn below:

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. Those dogs were big, mentally sound, and beautiful. In 1990, Barber separated her dogs from the AKC and in 1991 created the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV) as the official governing body for the breed.

As the breed gained recognition and popularity near the turn of the millenium, new registries and clubs began to form, each having their own vision for the future of the breed.

I don't agree with this article as written as I still feel it is trying to diminish the other club and registries and making the Shiloh Shepherd just seem as if they are just GSD's from Shiloh kennels.

The ISSR may be Barber's "official governing body, but as proven for weeks now, it is not the sole Shiloh Shepherd registry. Also, while mentioning that Barber seperated "her" Shiloh Kennels GSD from the AKC, the article fails to mention in doing so a new Rare Breed was accepted and recognized. Further, this New Breed was not just formed due to Barber seperating her GSD's from AKC, there was the addition of other breeds that are not GSD's , thus they no longer could be registered with the AKC as GSD's.

Further, the statement of each registry having thier own vision is not true. Every registry is and has been breeding to the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard that was given freely to everyone up until the last year or so. Even though now Barber wants to claim ownership to the standard, it is still the tool everyone has been using, thus, the claim each has thier own vision for the future of the breed is very misleading.

The article as written now is fair and balanced and as Jareth said it fits other dog project sites and has my vote as being accepted. ShenandoahShilohs

---

Patti,

Please correct me if I am wrong:

• Aren't these dogs named after the kennel of origin - Shiloh Shepherds?
• Wasn't the ISSR, started in 1991, the governing body for these dogs?
• Isn't the only other breed added by way of a dog that was a GSD/Malamute mix. But isn't it also true that not ALL dogs that left the AKC in 1990 had this dog in its genetics.

The suggested history section does not say that the ISSR is the sole Shiloh registry, it states that in 1991 the ISSR was created to be the governing body for the dogs, which is true. The suggested history section states (without going into specific details) that in 1990 these dogs were separated from the AKC, which is true. The suggested history section states that other registries/clubs have been formed, which is true. If the phrase "each having their own vision for the future of the breed" is not accurate in your opinion, then it can be removed.

How does this sound?

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. Those dogs were big, mentally sound, and beautiful. In 1990, these re-created dogs were separated from the AKC and in 1991 the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV) was established to be the official governing body for the breed.

As the breed gained recognition and popularity near the turn of the millenium, new registries and clubs began to form.

In the External Links section of the article is listed all the registries/clubs

I know you have strong personal feelings and so do many others. Can we please work together to create an article that can be acceptable to all parties involved?SandraSS 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it the way it is written now, as agreed upon : "The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under development since 1974 by the breed founder, Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York state. Tina Barber's stated intention was to create an exceptionally intelligent companion dog, reminiscent of the trained dogs in the film and television series The Littlest Hobo.

As the breed achieved recognition and popularity near the turn of the millennium, other registries were formed, as well as a second breed club for these registries. The breed now has multiple registries, including The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), and the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA). There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs, the Shilohs Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA) and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC)."

I don't accept it the way Sandra has written it above this. It again tries to set apart the ISSR as the only recognized registry, which it is not.NobleAcres 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)gloria

YOU ALL AGREE THAT THIS BREED IS "RECOGNIZED" BY *ABRA* right? Well ... ARBA did NOT recognize any of the *other* registries ...as you seem to claim ... and even states so on THEIR wbsite!! PLEASE READ http://www.arba.org/ShilohShepherd1BS.htm Tina M. Barber

I like the way the article is written currently. It reflects the listing of the registries and clubs in the manner that the support poll was taken and largely voted in favor of. First listing was given to the ISSR and the SSDC in registry and club listing. The current way it reads is neutral and without "bias" or "emotional" attachments. I would vote to keep it as it is written currently. Iamgateway--

Response to Sandra's article suggestions

Sandra writes:

Please correct me if I am wrong: Aren't these dogs named after the kennel of origin - Shiloh Shepherds? Wasn't the ISSR, started in 1991, the governing body for these dogs? Isn't the only other breed added by way of a dog that was a GSD/Malamute mix. But isn't it also true that not ALL dogs that left the AKC in 1990 had this dog in its genetics.

Yes it is true that some dogs that left AKC didn't have Sampson in thier pedigree at that time, but lets not go there about any other breed. Tina has made many claims thru the years of another breed added through the Baker line. Remember all of her stories about the big gray dog?

Sandra writes:

the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV)

I take great umbrage in the comparison of the ISSR to the SV. Here are some of the basic SV rules"

Basic SV breed requirements

Inbreeding of 2-2 or closer (breedings between litter mates or to their parents or grand parents) are not permitted.

Both dogs must have a minimum SchH1 or IP1 or HGH training degree and the "a" stamp (Hip certificate).

The male must have completed his 24th month before he can be used as a stud dog, and may serve a maximum of 60 bitches annually, spaced evenly throughout the year. Artificial inseminations are not permitted.

A female must have completed her 20th month before she can be mated for the first time.

Now lets face facts. The Shiloh was created on inbreeding, which is against the SV rules. It has never been mandatory for any Shiloh to have a working title. SV Hip ratings were issued by licensed SV Vets, not by the breeder of the dog as was the case when the ISSR was established and still in practice today. Males can be bred within the ISSR at 12 months, the SV 24 months. ISSR females only 19 months, SV 20 months before being bred.

These are just the basic SV requirements, and none are ISSR requirements.

The only similarity of the ISSR to the SV is the LMX program, but then T Barber has always claimed that was her invention.

We could go into more of the SV rules and how the ISSR is at the opposite spectum, but the fact is, comparing the ISSR to the SV is extremly misleading.

Again, the article as written is the most accurate and unbias.

ShenandoahShilohs

Jareth - Your Opinion Please [and other dogbreed project editors]

• It is FACT not POV that Tina Barber is the breed founder
• It is FACT not POV that these dogs are a result of her goal to preserve the GSD as she knew it
• It is FACT not POV that these dogs are named for the kennel of origin - Shiloh Shepherds - which has been Tina Barbers kennel name since 1974.
• It is FACT not POV that in 1990, these dogs were taken out of the AKC
• It is FACT not POV that in 1991, Tina Barber established the ISSR as the official registry for this breed.
• It is FACT not POV that Tina Barber stated she based the ISSR on the SV

Nothing stated in the proposed history section is POV, it is all fact. I don't see any "legitimate' reason why those facts cannot be included in the article. What I do see is an attempt by the other group to disregard the significance of the ISSR by not including the fact that, in 1991, it was the first and only established registry.

The NSBR was established in 2001, the TSSR was established in 2002, the SSBA was established ??

SandraSS

Sandra writes: *It is FACT not POV that Tina Barber stated she based the ISSR on the SV Gloria replies: Again we're getting into what is true and what TB STATED. The fact is ISSR is not based on the SV. Maybe in someone's mind it is.......NobleAcres 14:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Gloria

This is another one of those cases where we need a source. If Tina's website states that she based in on the SV, there's no reason not to include it unless someone has a reference that states she did not (a reference defining SV wouldn't work since that would be asking us to do our own research and make a conclusion of truth). .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually her web site is once again based on her own original research. Even taking that in play, if you read her own link for the ISSR Registry, there is no mention of it being based on the SV. Further, there was a 32 page booklet written in the early 90's titled "The Origins of the Shiloh Shepherd" "In Word and Picture" There were other writers of this booklet as well as Ms Barber. It was printed and presented by the SSDCA and NO where in this booklet does it say that the ISSR was based on the SV. Moreover, Ms Barber presented the ISSR's system as her own creation. She wrote " A very complex LMX system was designed" If the claims of it being based on the SV were true, then it should have said " A very complex LMX program based on the SV was used". Instead she wrote it had to be designed.

The following is a quote from this booklet and is also on her own web site:

These dogs did not come about by accident, "HUNDREDS OF LITTERS HAD TO BE BORN AND THOUSANDS of puppies were tested, using various combinations of American and German lines. Only the best possible offspring were retained, to be used for future breedings." A very complex LMX (Littermate-information) system was designed to weed out any inferior recessive genes. This later proved to be of IMMENSE value in helping breeders to better understand the TOTAL "GENETIC MAKEUP" (BLUEPRINT) of their stock. Specially designed-detailed pedigrees, using the latest computer technology can be obtained through the ISSR. http://www.shilohshepherds.org/issr,inc.htm

Ms Barber has made many changes to the "History" of the Shiloh Shepherd in recent years, thus the claim of the ISSR being based on the SV. In fact with all the mention of the ISSR on her website, I only found the mention of being "based on the SV" in one newer article.

A writers POV is just that. How many times have you watched a movie where it claims "based on a true story", and it nothing like the true story. Somewhere down the line Ms Barber added this claim of being based on the SV, but that is again, her recent POV on her own website. It is also a making a mockery of the real SV. ShenandoahShilohs

Sounds like that fact doesn't merit inclusion then. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth: Would a web article written by Tina Barber be considered a reliable source? The article found here http://www.shilohshepherds.org/kennelof.htm was written by Tina Barber and clearly states that she developed a very strict registry based on the SV that worked so well in Germany. The words 'very strict registry' is linked to the ISSR website. Would this be seen as a reliable source that this is in fact, what she has stated? Whether anyone believes the ISSR is based on the SV is not the point. The point is, Tina Barber has stated that the ISSR was based on the SV. SandraSS

The problem with taking anything off these web sites are they all written by Tina Barber or approved by her, thus her POV.

These web pages are so full of contraditions it can be mind boggling. In some articles the Shiloh Shepherd is a breed of dog, more recent "articles" it is only a breed in development. Some articles say Sabrina is one of the great foundation females, more recent articles discredit this. These are just a couple of examples.Pages from this web site are an on going project to express her POV at the time they are written. Anything taken from the ISSR/SSDCA web site are Ms Barbers POV and are not verifiable proof and with all the contradictions on these web pages, articles should be disqualified. The ISSDC web site could claim that we are breeding healthier and more stable Shiloh Shepherds than Ms Barbers New Zion kennels. While we may feel that way, it is our POV and would not be accepted in the article. Again, anyone can claim anything on thier own web site, doesn't make it fact.

ShenandoahShilohs

Almost all sources push their own POV, often without even realizing it -- in most cases, this is countered by other sources and that helps balance the article. Unfortunately we have limited information available on this topic and have to make do with what we've got. I did a bit of research and I'm having a hard time finding anything published on the Shiloh -- does anyone have any suggestions for other sources? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

POV???

Ms Barber has made many changes to the "History" of the Shiloh Shepherd in recent years, thus the claim of the ISSR being based on the SV. In fact with all the mention of the ISSR on her website, I only found the mention of being "based on the SV" in one newer article.

HOGWASH!!! based on is not the same as duplicated!! please view my full reply! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A writers POV is just that. How many times have you watched a movie where it claims "based on a true story", and it nothing like the true story. Somewhere down the line Ms Barber added this claim of being based on the SV, but that is again, her recent POV on her own website. It is also a making a mockery of the real SV. ShenandoahShilohs

HOGWASH!! I will reply in DETAIL!!! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like that fact doesn't merit inclusion then. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) NOW I AM GETTING MAD -- AND WILL START MY WIKI *FACTS* ARTICLE TODAY! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth: Would a web article written by Tina Barber be considered a reliable source? The article found here http://www.shilohshepherds.org/kennelof.htm was written by Tina Barber and clearly states that she developed a very strict registry based on the SV that worked so well in Germany. The words 'very strict registry' is linked to the ISSR website. Would this be seen as a reliable source that this is in fact, what she has stated? Whether anyone believes the ISSR is based on the SV is not the point. The point is, Tina Barber has stated that the ISSR was based on the SV. SandraSS

THANKYOU SANDRA ... A SANE PERSON IN THIS MIRE OF HOGWASH!!! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with taking anything off these web sites are they all written by Tina Barber or approved by her, thus her POV.

SAME IS TRUE FOR THE "OTHER" REGISTRY SITES ... THE *ONLY* PROOF THAT THEY EVEN EXIST IS *THEIR* POV!!!! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tina, honestly the constant attacks on the other registries and editors are getting you nowhere. You've been asked repeatedly to stop; please find a way to discuss the issue without resorting to threats. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)