Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Straw Poll - History Section

Following are the three current proposals for the changes to the History section. 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".

(A) Sandra SS Proposal:

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.

[SandraSS note at bottom of Proposal: "The existing registries and clubs can all be listed in the external links section of the article. People will be free to visit them and make their own decision from there."]

(B) NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC History Proposal:

During the mid-1970’s, Tina Barber, of Shiloh Shepherd Kennel in New York State, began developing a unique line of German Shepherd Dogs. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd Dog she remembered as a child in Germany; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful, and similar to Chuck Eisenmann’s “Hobo” dogs.

Following the introduction of a non-German Shepherd into the breeding program, these dogs were separated from the AKC. In 1990, recognition for this rare breed was granted and it was formally named the "Shiloh Shepherd" after its kennel of origin. Soon after, the first Shiloh Shepherd registry, International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) was formed, and an official Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard was written.

As the breed grew in popularity, additional registries were formed which adhere to the original Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard. These are: the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), and the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA).

There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs: the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA), which is affiliated with the ISSR, and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC), which is affiliated with the NSBR, TSSR, and the SSBA.

Additional information about this breed can be found in several all-breed publications, websites, and books. The Shiloh Shepherd has grown in number and popularity and it continues to be embraced by rare breed organizations and dog fanciers alike.(end)

(C) Tina Barber History Proposal:

The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under develoopment since 1974 by the breed founder, Tina M. Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York Ste, in an effort 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 popularity, Tina Barber wrote a new Breed Standard

http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohShepherdIllustratedBreedStandardDonorsFinal.htm

when she chose to separate some of her dogs from the AKC and set specific criteria for individuals that would be allowed to enter the new breed development program as of 1990. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/originalISSRrules.htm

In 1991 the ISSR was officially Incorporated, and the SSDCA, Inc. was approved as the parent club for this breed, while under development. Since that time over 4,000 dogs have been registered as per the ISSR rules, and the TCCP has continued to maintain extended data on them, as well as over 45,000 ancestors in order to properly calculate various factors within this limited genepool.

Near the turn of the millennium, other registries were formed, and a second breed club was started in 2004, for these registries. The breed now has multiple registries, that are constantly in conflict. Please view external links for more details.’’’

[T. Barber note at bottom of Proposal: "ASIDE FROM ADDING IN SOME GOOD LINKS (TO WIKI FACT SITES) I THINK THIS WOULD PROVIDE AN HONEST NPOV ARTICLE"]

Support Revision (B)

Revision B - I support this revision as the only one of the three offered that is completely unbiased and unemotional and the most factual. ShilohshepherdJudy

--I fully support Revisions B, I feel it is neutral to all parties while still addressing the concerns of Tina Barber that her ISSR has recognition that she developed it and it was one of the first to Register the Shiloh Shpherd. ShenandoahShilohs

--Revision B is the obvious choice as it states the facts in a neutral and unbiased format while still giving credit to Ms Barber, the SSDCA and the ISSR as the founder, first club and originating registry of the Shiloh Shepherd. Dartagnan

--Revision B is fair and unbiased. It follows the form requested by both the SandraSS and Barber Proposals, demonstrating good-faith. It includes some information requested in the SandraSS and Barber Proposals, demonstrating compromise. It makes no judgments, promotes no agenda and is non-political (in that it does not comment on nor compare various registries/clubs affiiated with the breed), demonstrating a lack of bias. It appropriately emphasizes and acknowledges the contributions of the breed founder and it is accurate in its description of the breed's history, demonstrating a willingness to negotiate and neutrality. I support Revision B. MilesD. 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

--Revision B appears to be the most accurate and unbiased version. Shiloh Supporter —the preceding unsigned comment is by 207.195.240.148 (talk • contribs)

--Revision B seems to be the most non biased and neutral position with no "attitudes" being addressed towards any group. It is accurate, it is multi-group compromising, and spotlights the person that wants the spotlight. It invites a Wikipedia surfer into a warm and friendly arena to the Shiloh Shepherd where they can learn facts and choose to investigate the links given on fair and equal offering ground. Lets not assume the public so uneducated and, instead, think of them as people with good sense that can read and decide for themselves. The public is who we are trying to educate. This allows them the decision to make a choice for themselves while embracing them on that initial hit into Wikipedia with nothing but positives, void of all the underlying tension. All links that each group has promoted will be offered below as surfing options. I think it is fair, perfect and the only choice. Iamgateway

--I suport revision B. It supports TB and her goals while remaining unbiased toward registries and clubs. NobleAcres 01:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Gloria

-- After having read the full discussion from Archive 1 to present Revision B is fair, accurate, and NPOV. Gwyllgi 02:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-- I support Revision B... do B do B dooooo. :-)WindsongKennels 14:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-- I strongly support Revision B. It fair to all concerned and "Yes" I have read ALL of the discussions. 12.41.65.74V&G

-- I support Revision B as the one that will present the Shiloh in the best light to the public . I have read all messages on this Wikipedia site. S Scott 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC) S Scott S Scott 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Revision (C)

I find Tina Barber's version of the history to be the most appropriate. There isn't anything in it that is misleading -- in fact, knowing how strongly she feels about this issue, I thought she went out of her way to be neutral in expressing the fact that other registries have been formed. The only reason I can think of that some might not like this version is that it does not specifically name the newer registries. Is that the problem? I wouldn't have an issue with including the list of other registries, as long as the following statement was added: "The breed founder continues to affiliated with the SSDCA and does not recognize or participate in the activities of the other registries." This is not meant to be inflamatory, it is simply stating a fact.

The most important thing to remember in this entire discussion is that the breed is still under development. The gene pool must be closed, monitored and carefully controlled in order to set the breed characteristics, and all of this must be fully documented and all of the data collected in one place if the Shiloh Shepherd is ever to be recognized by the AKC or by any of the more mainstream organizations. Therefore the existence of multiple registries, or at least the compromise in version B that implies that all of the registries are equal, is ultimately detrimental to the breed.

208.134.236.116 02:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Katy C SSDCA member

I support Revision C 69.151.140.131 19:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Amber E

Discussion

People feel passionately about their own points of view. That is understanding. But it is important to realize that most of the people who are posting here are doing just that, presenting their own passionate, biased, subjective, points of view.

I feel that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present unbiased factual information, not subjective and passionate points of view and unreliable third or fourth hand information. If WIKI is unable to resolve this matter by going to verifiable sources and checking the facts, and has to instead resort to taking a poll of the public's subjective opinion, the WIKI entry will neither be unbiased or factual, and should be deleted in its entirety.

Of course, that is just my subjective opinion.

208.27.203.131 JSS Wildfire Kennel

I whole-heartedly agree with your definition of the purpose of an encyclopedia. It would appear that Revision B is the most obvious choice, as it remains neutral without showing favortism to any registry or club. It simply states that facts without additional embellishment from either angle. Dartagnan

I would have to agree with Dartagnan and JSS in the aspect that Wikipedia is for the public. The purpose of Wikipedia encyclopedia is to the public and not to the attitudes of the individual biases of the individual groups. Revision B establishes that unbias, yet factual presentation void of the underlying tension and attitudes housed within the other proposals. It states facts in neutral tones while establishing educational surfing links for the public to investigate and take with them the information they deem important and which prompted their initial search, in the first place. Iamgateway

I have to agree with JSS Wildfire Kennel. Having a Straw Poll is really pointless IMO because those that support the ISSDC/TSSR/NSBR/SSBA will of course, vote for the article they wrote. Those that support the ISSR/SSDCA are going to support their own point of view. So this really doesn't settle the arguement. I still feel that due to there being so much conflict between the 2 groups, the best thing would be to remove the article entirely. Save the Shiloh Shepherd name further embarrassment. I will say it again, IMO, I don't think there will ever be an article written that will satisfy both parties. SandraSS

I respectfully don't agree with JSS Wildfire Kennels statement on the Straw Poll. Popular vote has been the democratic way of this Nation, it is what we are founded on. And trust me, there are FIERCE political parties that feel equally strong about their parties in the Nations field of voters.

Of the 1000+ people that are members of the forum under the ISSR's moderated community, the Breed Founders has sited her opinions and requested multiple times that more of the ISSR community come and vote to show support of this article and it's input. I think that of 1000+ people that are reading that forum, only a handful of members, maybe 10 at the max, have come on to post in support. Even less have replied to her direct calling for voting assistance, 5 in the original Straw Poll (less than 1/2 of a percent of her 1000+ possible voting forum) and one voter was drawn for support for her "history" section, a reduction of 80% of her previous voters. That would equate to less than 1% of her population coming to assist her in this entire issue. I think that speak volumes in itself. I would think that the obvious absence of votes and support, shows those voters have already made their choice in their silence. So those that support the ISSR, 1000+, have made the choice NOT to vote or stand with the Breed Founder in this issue, (even after being uniquely rallied, as no other groups or organizations have entered that field of vote campaigning). One could state that that statement by me would be an assumption, ok, maybe....but its an assumption based on 1000+ people, statistically, again, the odds of a support cliental would be in favor of more than 10 people responding no matter how much of an assumption that would fall under. There is an equal voice here, one that is not hidden or squashed and THAT is the unique field that Wikipedia has offered. Wikipedia has not shut down the voice of the people but allowed them voice and personally, I think that voice has been loud and clear. Revision B offers the unbiased factual information that JSS was talking about, that the public was looking for. Again, it is the only choice.:Iamgateway

I agree with Wildfire and Dartagnan. The article needs to remain free of emotion. I try to look at it through the eyes of future Shiloh fanciers. They just need to see the facts without all the drama. And people who already have the privilage of living with Shilohs should be able to look at and refer to the article with pride. Revision B is the only one that offers that. NobleAcres 01:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Gloria

I echo the postions of Gloria, Dartagan, Iamgateway, and others that will surely follow. Censorhip is never the answer. This type of position (censorship) is no different than book burning - eliminate anything that doesn't agree with one's own personal agenda. I encourage the participation of everyone in this discussion and only request everyone actually reads the entire discussion to understand the points rather than making blind statements on their support of any position. Wikipedia is not about the elimination of information, it's about the growth of it. The suggestion of deletion was never raised by a Wikipedia mediator, but a few issr affiliated editors. The discussion can/will continue until an article is developed, and even if one is never reached, this discussion page will become an excellent future source for understanding the key positions of both sides of the discussion. Gwyllgi 03:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Katy C's remarks under Support C; Katy C....respectfully, If her "neutral" statement is commended by using comments as "registries in constant conflict", and the desire to use further comments as the ones you stated you would like to see added, in your response under Support C, I am not sure one understands the term unbias or neutral as Wikipedia is requesting and waiting patiently for. One, if Tina "does not recognize or participate in the activities of the other registries", then how is any of her testimony on the other registries validated unless she is affiliated or unless she has membership within these groups? Secondly, if your additional statement is true, then how can her statement of "registries in constant conflict" be justified or validated with no knowledge of these organizations or registries and how can she make these claims after openly acknowledging being an outsider? Wouldn't that make these mere assumption on her part and not facts? Wikipedia has asked time and time and time again, for facts. One can't state facts if one is not affiliated in any manner with the ongoings of said group that they claim zero affiliation. All of the people speaking on this group have had close affiliation with the ISSR, at one time, been in good standing with the ISSR and have even held offices and supreme titles of honor within the ISSR, for a collective number of years that would accumulate in the multi-decades of numbers. I think you are correct when you posted on the fact that Ms. Barber feels very strongly about this issue, maybe that is clouding her bias. It would seem to be the fact in the presentation of her posts. Just some thought for you to ponder, also. [[User:Iamgateway|iamgateway

Iamgateway....also respectfully, You bring up an interesting point in that I read the phrase, "registries in constant conflict," differently than you did. I think she is saying that there is conflict between registries, not necessarily within registries. We have only to read the other posts in this whole Shiloh discussion to see that there is considerable conflict between those who belong to the SSDCA and register their dogs with the ISSR, and those who do not. She (or anyone else) would not have to particpate in the registry to know if there is conflict within them, because I don't think that was the intent of her statement. As far as my suggested addition (if the other registries were listed), it is, if anything, a way of openly addressing that the author of the history (Tina Barber) has a bias, and is not trying to hide that bias. I have actually taught critical reading skills, which includes understanding the author's bias, at the graduate school level, and one of the things we talk about is not only whether or not the author has a bias, but whether or not the author is trying to hide or camoflauge his or her bias. A discerning reader gives more credibility to an openly acknowledged bias than to any subterfuge. That is also why I identified myself as an SSDCA member. Clearly, I have a bias, although I spent a year researching before I joined the SSDCA, and I continue to read about Shilohs on websites that are not affiliated with that organization. I feel I made an informed choice. Not all of the people who have posted an opinion in this discussion have been as forthcoming about their affiliations. I realize that many of the people who have posted here used to be active members of the SSDCA, and then for one reason or another decided to leave. For that very reason, they also have strong feelings about the issues discussed here, and may also have a strong emotional bias -- Tina Barber is not alone in that. The main difference to me is in the tone of the writing; a reasonable tone often masks strong emotion, if the writer is adept at persuasion and knows the lessons of a well-constructed argument. Again, a discerning reader should be aware of this in order to decide whether or not he or she is being manipulated by this bias. To return to my suggested addition, it may also be possible that some may be concerned that my suggested addition would bias the reader toward the SSDCA, and those who belong to the other registries would actively fight that, because, frankly, they have an agenda in this discussion too, and it would be dishonest and misleading to pretend that they did not; however, an encyclopedia is not about free advertising, it's purpose should be (as stated previously) to inform. My suggested statement is not meant as advertising but as a supporting detail for the previous sentence about conflict between the registries. It is factual, and it is in no way misleading. Thank you for responding -- it really never occurred to me that the phrase "registries in constant conflict," could be interpreted in any other way.

208.134.236.116 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Katy C SSDCA member

Katy, the structure of an encyclopedia is not singularly authored. It is collective cummulative facts taken from history written in a neutral, unbiased fashions. Consider the Holocaust, can you imagine if either party was allowed to take full authorship of such an event. Thus Wikipedia's constant request for consensus and neutral, unbiased facts for this article. iamgateway

Absolutely, iamgateway; however, all of the versions we are looking at have been written by, or put forth by, people who have biases about the Shiloh Shepherd, so I was looking at it in that context. I do understand what you're saying in the context of my previous post -- that the author of the history would probably not be acknowledged. Even if this is the case, I still feel that Version C is the most appropriate, for the reasons I stated in my first post. I am really not trying to bash members of the other registries or imply that they are somehow bad people; I just think that if the breed is to flourish, we need one registry to be dominant, and that registry has to be the one with the longest history, the most data, and the most credibility in the mainstream dog world. The foundation stock program for the AKC wants decades worth of documentation on all the dogs in the breed development program, and they also insist on a sufficient number of dogs in the established gene pool used to create the breed. The other registries don't have the numbers or the history to move that breed forward, or at least not anytime soon. The ISSR keeps getting close to achieving the data, the numbers, and the set breed type, but then someone decides -- often for emotional reasons such as a disagreement with Tina Barber, personally or as breed warden -- to leave the ISSR and shrink the gene pool, thus crippling efforts to complete the development of the breed.

The bottom line? I don't think that registries that have been around for a relatively short time should be presented to the public as being on equal footing with the ISSR, not because they're fraudulent or evil, but because the more registries that exist, the longer it will take to finally fully create the breed. Therefore Version C should be used.

I can't deny that there are other issues in all of this that bother me -- I don't think it's ethical to use the name Shiloh Shepherd if the dog's aren't registered with the ISSR. I don't care about the whole trademark controversy; to me, Tina Barber had the original vision for the dog. It's her dream no matter how many people are involved in the breeding. She used the name first, and she has the right to control how the breed is developed. Any arguments I have read to the contrary just seem like rationalizations to me. It's about morality not legality. -- but for the purposes of this discussion, acknowledging the ISSR as the dominant Shiloh Shepherd registry is the smart choice for the future of the breed.

Have a good night,

208.134.236.49 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Katy C SSDCA member

--"DISCUSSION WITH KATY

-Katie said above: "You bring up an interesting point in that I read the phrase, "registries in constant conflict," differently than you did. I think she is saying that there is conflict between registries, not necessarily within registries."

My reply: The statement in Proposal C "The breed now has multiple registries, that are constantly in conflict" is ambiguous in meaning and therefore, both interpretations are valid until Ms. Barber, herself, clarifies her statement in Proposal B by changing the wording.

-Katie said above: "As far as my suggested addition (if the other registries were listed), it is, if anything, a way of openly addressing that the author of the history (Tina Barber) has a bias, and is not trying to hide that bias. I have actually taught critical reading skills, which includes understanding the author's bias, at the graduate school level, and one of the things we talk about is not only whether or not the author has a bias, but whether or not the author is trying to hide or camoflauge his or her bias. A discerning reader gives more credibility to an openly acknowledged bias than to any subterfuge."

My reply: I think you make a valid point here re: the permissibility of bias. The authors of Proposal B, however, made a choice to not reveal “any” bias, on the parts of any of the registries (ISSR,NSBR, TSSR, SSBA). If you are suggesting that the History section be allowed to openly acknowledge Ms. Barber's bias, would you then obviously support as valid, an opportunity/inclusion in the History section for the NSBR,TSSR,SSBA to explain why these registries were formed as a result of that conflict? Proposal B supports not opening that "Pandora's box" in the History Section, because it would result in negative comparisons of and commentary about ALL the registries, including the ISSR. By allowing the section to remain neutral, Proposal B has offered a "truce", in that no registries, nor history of their origins, will be discussed in the History section itself, rather discussion of these histories can be thoroughly discussed on their individual websites.

-Katie said above: "I just think that if the breed is to flourish, we need one registry to be dominant, and that registry has to be the one with the longest history,. the most data, and the most credibility in the mainstream dog world. The other registries don't have the numbers or the history to move that breed forward, or at least not anytime soon."

My reply: Using my own critical reading skills, I cannot accept your POV, unless you can substantiate these statements. Even assuming that your first statement may be true (for the breed to flourish, we need one registry), your second statement (that registry has to be the one with the longest history) is an assumption, as you have not proven it to be true that an oldest registry has the most data nor that the ISSR has the most credibility in the mainstream dog world.

You need to provide documentation for your position. Are you referring to "history" in the sense of registry longevity or are you referring to history in terms of "breed records" Do you know what historical information these other registries have? Are you aware that the breeders affiliated with these registries own many of the dogs (and their offspring) previously registered with the ISSR, that they were given access to all historical ISSR TCCP information by Ms. Barber, prior to their leaving, and that they have taken all of this historical information with them to their new registries? It may be valid that these registries actually possess “more” information on the history of this breed, as these dogs have continued to reproduce, than the ISSR? An analogy: IBM, among many other companies and individuals researched, developed and built a foundation for the personal computer. Bill Gates, having gained access to this historical information and, in conjunction with his own vision and efforts, established Microsoft. IBM may be the older repository for a body of information about microcomputers, but it is no longer either the more complete nor most current repository for state-of the-art microcomputer information or application.

-Katy said above: "The ISSR keeps getting close to achieving the data, the numbers, and the set breed type, but then someone decides -- often for emotional reasons such as a disagreement with Tina Barber, personally or as breed warden -- to leave the ISSR and shrink the gene pool, thus crippling efforts to complete the development of the breed."

My reply: 1)It is not someone, it is very many (as documented throughout this discussion and on the ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA websites and your own statements re: the ISSR's loss of a genepool) 2)You are both minimalizing and trivializing the reasons for their departure, attributing it to “emotional reasons such as a disagreement”. While emotional (yes there were "feelings" of betrayal, anger, sadness and relief), because it involved living, breathing, wonderful animals and broken human relationships, the MOTIVES involved ANIMAL WELFARE, fraud, deception, theft, forgery, legally upheld lawsuits, physical threats, etc. 3)You are correct, the gene pool of the ISSR has been badly depleted due to the removal of many dogs from that registry (which even further calls into question your claim that the ISSR remains or can remain the pre-eminent Shiloh Shepherd repository, from both a record-keeping and actual genetic/physical perspective, for the future of this breed. However, this depleted gene pool, resulting from these breeders' withdrawal from the ISSR (and establishment of other registries), are results directly attributable to unacceptable "actions" by Ms. Barber, not the understandable "reactions" of those breeders who could no longer remain because of her, nor because they wanted to deny her contributions/participation to/with the breed.

Katy, I must ask you this, truly respectfully: As a former teacher of "critical reading skills", how do you apply those principles and still accept, rationalize and support so many of Ms. Barber's consistently illogical, conflicting, and contradictory explanations in this debate? Thank you. MilesD. 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Question for nancy-TiAmo

Nancy writes: "The ISSR/SSDCA rules and regulations are strict and exact with true concern for the integrity of the Shiloh Shepherd in mind. The people who appear to find the need to attack Tina Barber seem to be the same people who are unwilling to follow the rules as prescribed and then they set out to form new groups/registries to fit their own needs"

Nancy, may I respectfully ask you how you came to the conclusions you have voiced? I understand it has been drilled into your head that people not affiliated with the ISSR do not follow strict rules. In your own words can you take the time to expalin what strict rules are not being followed?

May I ask you how many non ISSR Shilohs you have met in person vs the bad pictures Tina shows you? May I ask you how many non ISSR Shiloh breeders you have spoken with? May I ask you the last time you investigated the major health testing done outside of the ISSR, via the OFA site, the CERF site, or asked to see Penn HIP results?

May I ask you how many non ISSR breeders you have taken the time to ask why they left the ISSR, vs what you are told?

Answers to these question may help determine how an intelligent person as yourself came to those conclusions? Basing any conclusion on others opinions can be dangerous.

Thank you

ShenandoahShilohs

Hello Nancy, I think it would be safe to say that the supposed "people who appear to find the need to attack Tina Barber" don't exist. Most former ISSR and "splinter" people would prefer to never have anything to do with her again, honestly. If you examine the dialogue over the archives here, it's pretty clear "who" is constantly initiating the attacks, as can also be seen on countless pages of the ISSR website as well as DAILY on her private forum. Would it be considered an "attack" to question whether the only "war" in existence is that within her own mind?

Shiloh Supporter

Shiloh Supporter, is that you again? The Wisdom of RebelShiloh

24.239.210.36 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Edmund Dantes

Mr. Dantes, could you please explain to me the relevance of the link you have supplied? I am also curious why you would ask "is that you again". I don't recall sharing any dialogue with you in the past.

Thank you.

Shiloh Supporter

I'm sure that all of the "non-ISSR breeders" would love to see Tina vanish because then they would be free to breed their German Shepherd or German shepherd mixes and be able to fraudulantly convince the world that these are truly Shiloh Shepherds when they are nothing of the kind.

Shelley Watts at least had the integrity to call her dogs King Shepherds. I would like to ask a question of these people. Can you please explain how the same AKC German Shepherd dog can sire pure GSD puppies, King Shepherd puppies and "shiloh shepherd" puppies all in the same year. If you have the same dog with the same genetics that looks the same, how can you issue papers for three different breeds? Many people are already discovering the fraud.

24.239.210.36 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Edmund Dantes

Mr Dantes, there is no need to be disrespectful and accuse people of being someone else. We could do the same with you as your name has not been seen on any Shiloh forum and just appeared here today.

You asked "Can you please explain how the same AKC German Shepherd dog can sire pure GSD puppies, King Shepherd puppies and "shiloh shepherd" puppies all in the same year"

While I have no idea how this is relevant, I would suggest you ask Ms Barber. It has already been mentioned previously in these discussions that there was an AKC GSD at a dog show named Cisco. Ms Barber in one flash deemed him a Shiloh, Cisco was shown that day as a Shiloh, sired Shiloh puppies and to my knowledge retained his AKC papers. You may also ask her about a dog named Fraiya, was born a Shiloh, became a King, and then Ms Barber made her a Shiloh again. Or, while we are at it, an imported ADS (German Shepherd)was called a Shiloh, was shown as a Shiloh, and bred to produce Shiloh puppies.

I hope you can get those answers from Ms Barber, but in the mean time, we would all like to get back to discussing the article, rather than talking about issues that do not pertain to it.

Thank you ShenandoahShilohs

ShenandoahShilohs: Another good example would be CJ-Diamond Hills Lightening Bullet. This dog is owned by the owner/registrar of the NSBR and is a full blooded AKC GSD. This dog is a frequently used stud dog within the NSBR to produce Shiloh Shepherd litters. In fact, in 2004, "Bullet" was bred to Kind KyeAnne Selah, another full blooded AKC GSD and also Bullet's half sister. The dogs produced by this combination are registered with the NSBR as Shiloh Shepherds and appear to be shown in the Shiloh Shepherd category. Qwerty101

Welcome to the discussion Mr. Dantes. The more contributors the better. The more eyes that read the discussions here, the better. Those are some bold statements and hopefully you can attempt to elaborate on your claims. Since I assume you're new here I'll give you the benefit of not understanding the full rules of Wikipedia. The statement you made is slanderous and completely without foundation. If you wish to start a specific discussion on your thoughts and how it relates to this article kindly start a new discussion and we can take it from there. Hopefully you've taken the time to read through all three pages of the archives in order to get up to speed on where the discussion is and what questions/answers have already been posted. The only hostile parties I see in this discussion are those seeming to support Suggestion C for the history section (health section next). Gwyllgi 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Third party sources

From Jareth - Alright, let me see if I can help out with some third party sources. I'll be updating the article to include the references shortly. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] And by the way, noone said that her information on the history of the breed and its development are in question, she would be considered the expert in that area. This concerns her portrayal of the other registries. It appears that Tina has carried on this campaign on more than just Wikipedia [9] .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

S Scott replies - Jareth, please correct me if I'm mistaken, but 5 of the 8 sources you name above seem to be written from a distinct POV.

Those that are neutral are "Your Purebred Puppy," by Michele Welton - #2 on your list, http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/shilohshepherds.html

the UC Davis site (#5) http://www.vgl.ucdavis.edu/service/registries.html

the entire site for Shiloh Rescue (#8) http://shilohrescue.org/ShilohInfo/shiloh_shepherd_origins.htm

The UC Davis site provides no objective info on Shilohs, just has a partial listing of registries with e-mail addresses of contacts and no links to Websites.

Some sites are incorrect or perhaps just need updating, as in Doggeek.com, #6: "Shilohs are registered by the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry." No mention of other registries. http://www.doggeek.com/Breeds/S/Shiloh%20Shepherd.shtml

Also, in #1, Canada's Guide to Dogs, http://www.canadasguidetodogs.com/shiloh.htm, there is a mention of "Shiloh Shepherds TM Kennels." The dog pictured is identified as a New Zion dog, and the featured breeder link is to New Zion Shilohs.

In the link to the Intro to the Shiloh Shepherd, the trademark symbol appears each time the breed is mentioned by name, and there is the following statement: "Registries: International Shiloh Shepherd TM Registry, Inc. The ISSR is the only registry authorized to recognize a dog as a Shiloh Shepherd TM - as indicated on the ISSR Website." No other registries are listed.

Court records indicate that Ms. Barber was unsuccessful in her efforts to trademark the name Shiloh Shepherd, yet she continues to add the TM symbol to the breed name.

On the other side, Virginia Storey's Website, #4 http://www.canadogs.com/BreedShilohShepherd.htm, has a strong POV against Tina and Lisa, and Virginia writes about false statements that Tina and Lisa made to her. The account may be true, but this is not a third party source, as I understand the term.

The Dog Breed Info site, #3 http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/shilohshepherd.htm, mentions Tina's threats to the managers of the site if they allowed other registries to be listed. These threats would be simple to verify, but that part of the information isn't neutral.

It would be terrific to have a factual, unbiased article on the Shiloh Shepherd available to the public. However, unless I'm missing something, it looks as if these sources may not be too helpful. S Scott 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Regards, S ScottS Scott 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV, our job here is to sift out the facts from the POV and maintain the WP:NPOV tone of the article. The sites I listed show both sides, some pro-ISSR and some against. The point of the links is that there are other sites which describe the breed and its development that can be used (with a grain of salt) when writing the article here. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, what would be the proper way to include the articles about the Shiloh Shepherd that appear in the following print formats: The New Encyclopedia of the Dog, [Bruce Fogle, DVM, Photography by Tracy Morgan, DK Publishing 2nd Edition 2000; Companion Dogs, pg 387]and DogFancy, The World's Most Widely Read Dog Magazine; article titled Shiloh Shepherd: Devoted to you by Phil Davis, [©2003 by Fancy Publications, Inc., Volume 32 Number 2, February 2003, pg 56]? Dartagnan

Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading (which isn't in the article yet). Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work. You can then mark the areas of the article which use this source by putting a reference note like (Fogle 2000) after the sentence or paragraph derived from that particular reference. See WP:CITE for the full guideline.

There are templates available to make referencing easier, located at WP:CITET. There's also a tool someone wrote to generate the template code for you: WikiBibliography.

Drop me a line if you would like further help with referencing. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, what about the original version of the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Wikipedia article that was written by the well known and well respected J. Jeffrey Bragg and was on Wikipedia with minimal changes from the summer of 2003 until the late spring of 2005? Trillhill 02:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has been considerably improved and formatted per Wikipedia guidelines since its creation. Was there something in the older article you wanted to amend to this version? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, you are kidding I hope. Jeff Brag's article is nothing more than the same garbage that has brought us here in the first place.

His article was hardly unbias calling other registries and clubs "immitators and dissidents" was virtually a direct copy off of Barbers own web site. Since they are "friends" and his article was anything but neutral. ShenandoahShilohs

It's hard to say what the original text written even says about the breed since the article was moved. Regardless of that, should the text from the oldest available copy be the original Bragg article, it would appear that he definitely had no idea about the non-ISSR clubs and registries. It's nice that he initiated an article, but it's certainly no longer valid - nor would it fit in with the Wiki NPOV policy. Gwyllgi 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Patti, you show Jeff Bragg the same amount of respect that you show Tina Barber. Jeff Bragg is a very highly respected author on canine genetics and the co-founder of the Seppela Sled Dog project. Many days ago (on the first archive page) I posted a listing of his articles that are found on many well known canine genetics websites. He has been involved with Wikipedia as editor for many years. Gwyllgi, I have a copy of his original article and would be quite happy to repost it here.

Trillhill 04:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To the editors and moderators

To all the people trying to legitimately resolve a neutral unbias article on the Shiloh Shepherd I am afraid some are trying to turn this into a free for all. In the last 9 days, there have been 11 pleas from Ms Barber and Trillhill to have all the people on their e-group come here to "just vote". They are not active members of any of these discussions, but for some reason, some feel it is meaningful to have people with no knowledge of these discussions come here with directions of what to say, and links provided only to the topics they decide will be beneficial to them.

To support Ms Barber's war cry, she posted on her group that she was blocked from posting which is clearly not the case per the Wiki blocked list. The tactics used were to make people feel they had to post since she was silenced. People aren't encouraged to come here, read the discusion, and have an opinion, they are told what to vote, and what to say , so they can "save the breed"

How sad and embarrassing for the people who read this, and those that are trying to be professional and resolve an article.

ShenandoahShilohs

Patti, no one is telling people how to vote; Tina has been informing real Shiloh Shepherd owners of this situtation and encouraging them to take part. There are many additional people associated with your groups who were not present when this discussion was first initiated but are now "editors". How did that happen?

I do agree with you, however, that this whole discussion has been embarrassing, unprofessional and unworthy of the dogs that Ms. Barber created.

Trillhill 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---Karen, you may be making an assumption. A person who hasn't appeared as an editor until recently may well have been reading entries from the beginning. 69.23.255.76 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Regards, S Scott 69.23.255.76 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---TrillHill, Would it help you and our Talk page participants to see the direct "quotes" from your chat group? And yes, you do make a good point about Ms. Barber's whole discussion being embarrassing, unprofessional and unworthy of the dogs. For example, and since you have felt the need to explain her behavior throughout this discussion, could you please explain why she told her supporters she had been "blocked" from expressing her viewpoints, when that clearly isn't the case?

-Rather than continue with the usual false accusations and attempts to "convince" others that any contributions in opposition to Ms. Barber's views/dictates must be lies, perhaps you would be willing to discuss a few questions that contributors have re: the Shiloh Shepherd.

-For instance, I posted a few questions about your dog Artus and his eligibility/registration as a "genuine" Shiloh Shepherd (see post in Archive 3 "Ms Barber-Logical Conclusions I" and "Ms Barber-Logical Conclusions II) as compared with another dog, who Ms. Barber said is not a "genuine" Shiloh Shepherd.

-Since Ms. Barber has conveniently and consistently refused to address this issue, perhaps you as her "respresentative" these past couple of days, can help explain the paradox of your dog's status in relation to other dogs, and clear up this issue for the entire group, including your own affiliated supporters who are now asking questions about it.

-Your contribution to a discussion about this issue would be so much more appreciated, productive, educational and helpful. How about it? Do you have the courage, confidence and commitment to "the truth", to put forth your position and let the readers decide for themselves? Thank you. MilesD. 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Qwerty 101

Hello Qwerty. First of all, I would like to request Jareth does an edit on the below statement as I see no reasons as to what it may have to do with this discussion on history. Second, please go back through the achives (which I doubt you have read) to see Barber's explanation about Fisher's Cisco the Kid Spectacular for the answer to this query. ShilohshepherdJudy

Qwerty 101 wrote: Another good example would be CJ-Diamond Hills Lightening Bullet. This dog is owned by the owner/registrar of the NSBR and is a full blooded AKC GSD. This dog is a frequently used stud dog within the NSBR to produce Shiloh Shepherd litters. In fact, in 2004, "Bullet" was bred to Kind KyeAnne Selah, another full blooded AKC GSD and also Bullet's half sister. The dogs produced by this combination are registered with the NSBR as Shiloh Shepherds and appear to be shown in the Shiloh Shepherd category. Qwerty101

Actually it would be great if everyone would drop the accusations and focus on the article. Unless there's some documented proof from a reliable source that has something to do with this article, it doesn't need to be said. Please bring these types of things up somewhere other than Wikipedia. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)