Talk:New Guinea singing dog

Why no mention of climbing ability?

Yemani (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC) writes-> Can some one fill in more detail on behavior? NGSDs are very strong climbers, and the ones living domestically will climb curtains and household items like that. Yemani (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NGSD found outside of NG?

I am Wally Davies of South Australia. Several years ago I learned of a mysterious canine extant in thick Mallee Eucalypt scrub extending from Victoria into South Australia, a distance of about 150 kms. and 100 N-S. They were there when that country was opened for selection circa 1880. I learned of many unusual features about this canine and it's identity was unknown to Depts concerned. The dogs are notorious sheep killers and have beeen trapped from the beginning of settlement. Mid 2006 I obtained skulls and identified the dog as the New Guinea Singing dog. Its range extends through the Big Desert Wilderness and it has never extended beyond these boundaries, staying in the thick cover and emerging only on hunting forays. The skull bears no resemblance to dingo. In the Gnarkat Conservation Park in South Australia the dogs are favoured with partial protection. Hopefully in 2008 I could obtain skuls for supply at a nominal cost for postage. In time I will have a section on my website devoted to Australian NGSD. Pleaase visit my website http:/www.geocities.com/australiandesertcats This basically concerns the big feline predator, found in Australia which is in reality a giant house cat, the size of a puma and adapted to Australian conditions. Wally Davies (E-Mail removed for security purposes)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.192.240 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on the site, that the cat roared, either that's a mistake or t's not a house cat, they don't roar.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It could be just a small subspecies of Australian dingo or a hybrid domestic dog/dingo. Further research will hopefully determine this.

Taxonomy?

This is a species?? *confused* --e. 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is currently disputed rather NGSDs are a subspecies of the wolf, like the domestic dog and dingo, or if they are unique enough to be their own species. It has been found that NGSDs have certain differences from other canids, and action is now being taken to list the breed as its own species. This would allow NGSDs to be listed as endangered and help protect NGSDs from becoming extinct, with their numbers in the hundreds in captivity and possibly none left in the wild. Vortex 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This answer needs updating. If I understand Mammal Species of the World correctly, they have decided that it's not another species or subspecies, it's another dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World is merely a checklist of names and synonyms and is the opinion of one taxonomist who wrote the canid section, not a consensus of the taxonomic community. This reference is widely used by non-taxonomists, especially geneticists, to name canid species because it has the imprimatur of the Mammal Society of the USA, but it is not infallible and contains errors. The dog and the wolf, while the closest genetic relatives within the genus Canis, meet all definitions of separate "good" species, including very rare levels of natural hybridization where the two species range freely together. Most of the taxonomists I have questioned recognize this and consider them separate species. The authors of Mammals of the World did not use a biological definition for putting the dog as a wolf subspecies, only followed the generally accepted hypothesis that the dog is a domesticated gray wolf (still not proven beyond reasonable doubt) and in fact they violated the definition of subspecies by doing so. The accepted definition of a subspecies, established by Ernst Mayr in the 1940's, is: A defineable population of a larger population of that species (i.e. can be idenitifed by some inherited characteristics different from the main population, and the difference could be just a color variation or a minor morphological difference) that is separated from the main population by some geographical barrier providing genetic isolation between them. If the geographical barrier to contact/interbreeding is removed the subspecies and species would merge through interbreeding and the distinctions would be lost. So, going by proper scientific definition and consensus of canid taxonomists, the dog is not a subspecies of wolf. If one wanted to be completely uncontroversial, the wolf is Canis lupus, the domestic dog should be Canis familiaris domesticus (or familiaris), the Australian dingo Canis familiaris dingo and the NGSD Canis familiaris hallstromi, at least until more hard evidence is available to combine or separate these identifiable populations. Canis dingo is a good, accepted name for the Australian dingo which has been used for over 100 years. Now that we know from genetics that the Singer is indeed a "dingo" then another acceptible naming would be Canis dingo dingo and Canis dingo hallstromi. Taxonomy (describing species), nomenclature (naming species) and systematics (defining relationships between species and groups of species) are very complicated disciplines that can not be understood without considerable reading and understanding of the principles and subjects underlying them. What filters through to the popular press such as magazine/newspaper articles, is often mistaken, disputed, or incomplete. Jkoler (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks JK - love to hear comments from other editorMrhorseracer (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. Everybody with common sense can see the flaws in that. Who actually still uses Canis dingo? How much research has there actually been on wild wolfdogs? And low level of hybridization, hm, Bibikov found alot hybrids in the former Sovjet Union and theres was evidence in the 1930s and 40s in North America. Minor morphological differences? What is the definition of minor here? Some wolves look extremely different from others, sometimes even in the same population you have a high amount of plasticity. And really all of a sudden Matznick appears out of nowhere? And how credible is she? Her theories in the published papers are even more premature than those of Coppinger. If the wolf is not the ancestor who is it than and where is the proof? And of course it is just a hypothesis that dogs descended from wolves, yeah right. That is not a hypothesis, it was proven via DNA, breeding experiments and direct observation of wolves. Oh and let me guees, since it is Matznick, that "real ancestor" looked probably like the Singer right? Hm, strange... the proof for that is? And the dingo as a separate species? With that high number of visible dingo-hyrbids that are especially numerous near human settlements? Now way.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed reprinted text, edited, restored: DNA Evidence

Removed below as it was copied from another website, without explanation or cites and worded incomprehensibly. Also dated. Please fix before restoring. Notes from previous editors left in. **** --Hafwyn (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

R. Wayne, et al. in 1992 reported on base of mitochondrial DNA, state unique features of genome NGSD, various compared with 33 dog breeds also studied. !---Can someone who knows what the last sentence is trying to say clean up the grammar?

Sure. I'll try. Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) ---

In 1976 V Simonses published results of his study on New Guinea Singing Dog blood enzymes, in which two totally new proteins distinct from jackals, wolves and other canids, were found.

Since 1987 Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, a senior ecologist, has been studying NGSD DNA and behavior. In 1996 Dr. Brisbin, in collaboration with Mr. Will Gergits of Therion Corporation, (Troy, New York) found them to contain genetic markers that are also present in dingo, but not found in common grey wolf and the domestic dog breeds in the study. Dr. Brisbin and Janice Koler-Matznick are currently preparing a NGSD ethogram that describes several behaviors unique to this wild dog.

Sorry, not sure what that means. I may be able to tell after I finished the article on the dingo, because my research also brought alot of information on the NGSD. And by the way, some differences are not enough to classify them as a new species. Up to what I know they are neither morphologically nor biologically a seperate species.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that some differences do make a new species. The ethogram is available from the conservation website--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. Unless you say that a pug is a species of it's own.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Inugami, about that. The New Guinea Singing dog seems to me to be best thought of as a Breed of Dingo.

I would also like to comment on the above text. Please read it again. I and others have edited it for readability, and I think the significance is clear. They found that they are able to tell the NGSD DNA from that of Australian Dingo, and then another marker that distinguishes both the NGSD and the Australian Dingo on the one hand from ordinary Canis lupis familiaris dogs on the other.

What I really want to know is where the original source of the text is. Can we at least determine that it's not an obvious hoax? We could start by Googling the names of these people and places referred to, and do a Google scholor or some such search and find out several things: One, do such papers really exist? Two, are the sources reliable? Three: Is our edit of the mystery site text a fair summary of what the articles actually say? It seems to jive with everything we say in the article as it stands.

Next, we should check

Also, what with the heavy editing, and if we can find where it was taken from, could/should we remove the hidden text markers by now and allow this text to be seen on the main talk page? What if we cite it? It could end up summarized in the article. I think it'd be a fine addition if done right.

Dr. Brisbin sponsored one very small study by Dr. Gergits in 1987 when canid genetics had just started. It was never followed-up nor extended so it is not "since 1987." Their results were inconclusive due to small sample sizes and number of breeds included. Now there is good genetic evidence of the dingo/singer split from domestic dogs being at least 4,000 years ago <vonHolt, B. M. , et al., 2010. Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history unerlying dog domesticattion. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature08837 and subsequent printed issue>. The dating from DNA haplotypes has a large margin of error, and this date is the most conservative estimate of the separation of dingo/NGSD and domestic dogs, which could easily be twice that long ago.

The study referenced above as Wayne 1992 may be incorrect, as at that point in time Wayne did not have any NGSD samples. Wayne was part of the group that published a paper <Vila, C., et al. 1997. Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science 276: 1687-1989> that indicated that the dingo and Singer have a mtDNA type, D18, that groups within the largest clade of mtDNA types for domestic dogs, which merely means it is related and could have been one of the ancestral types others were derived from. In 2004 Savolainen's group published a paper <Savolainen, P., et al. 2004. A detailed picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 12387-12390> that indicated the dingo and NGSD share a mtDNA type that is very similar to types in some anceint Asian-origin domestic dog breeds such as the Siberian husky: not "identical" to the domestic dog types, but just separated by one or two mutations. This was mtDNA, and related/similar haplotypes are often not even exclusive to a species, but could be present in related species due to descent from a common maternal ancestor some time in the past, maybe even very distant past.

The most interesting genetic result was the blood protien differences found by V. Simonsen in 1976 before genes could be directly sequenced. He found that the NGSD had one blood protien that matched red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and another that matched coyote (Canis latrans) and red fox, and they were not the same as the types shared by the gray wolf, domestic dog, and Australian dingo. When whole genome nuclear DNA is possible, these types of evolutionary differences between NGSDs and other canids will be revealed. This is still years away and we must work with the best science-based evidence currently available, whch still shows the dingoes are not the "same as" domestic dogs or gray wolves and are worthy of conservation efforts. Jkoler (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that anybody with common sense will just believe that? You're writing like those people who think that they are always right. And why is this work of Simonson correct and not flawed? When was that profen a second time and by whom?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Last I check in order to be published (like my last paper) peers would insure I had no error as best they could, it is not infalliable, but - that's why you assume (good faith) that is corrrect. Do you have a specific issue, or just want to rant about "common sense"Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well lookee here Inu & Osm20. Unless I am mistaken it looks like Jkoler forgot to sign in as Jkoler prior to responding to Inu's comment. We have identified our first troll of the NGSD page and it's Matznick herself posing as Mrhorseracer. On the subject of peers reviewing your published work for errors, no need for you and I to continue the topic of the omitted birth date in the Ethogram because you wrote it. Tomcue2 (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well "horseracer", or hwo ever you are. The obvious flaw that you have is in your argumentations and the arrogance Matznicks works show as though she can see into the furture. So dingoes "are not the same as" domestic dogs and gray wolves? And you think that all these beings grouped under domestic dog and gray wolf are all the same? This is where common sense obviously fails here, no matter which one, we are talking of beings with a very wide distribution range and especially the domestic dog has been molded into so many shapes that some of them no longer look like the typical canine. The domestic dog has a very wide range of characteristics but Matznick doesn't classify them into different subspecies. Furthermore her classification of the dingo as a seperate species is completely contradicted by the high number of modern day dingo-mongrels. A mixture of two truly seperate species would not be able to easily breed with other hybrids and in generally produce fertile offspring. Furthermore she obviously lacks information she should have.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Scientific articles

I know there are studies being done, including genetic testing, on these dogs, but as someone who is only mildly interested I'm not going to pay the large fees required to look at articles in quality peer reviewed scientific journals -- if I could even find them in the first place. Someone who has real scientific resources (not just hobbyist dog magazines and breed books) needs to update this article. It's an interesting topic.--Hafwyn (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that this needs to be updated. I'm on it.

--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Me either. Saidly the most stuff is from Matznick and I don't trust her scientific judgement. But I have some more reliable sources.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it you disagree with Matznick's conclusion or the methodology? Trust her scientific judgement, doesn't mean much.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I added more links to science articles, but frankly there is limited. If you have better verifable sources, please add to the article. I think we can all agree that we really need more genetic testing to understand where the Singers fit in the canis community.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what more needs to be done, in your opinion, and what the remaining possiblities are. Chrisrus (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well for one, we need to expand testing markers of the captive population, strike that - A full genome sequence would be nice. Then compare to a wild specimen. This would get us on the road to answering what we have here in the states and how Singers fit in the taxonomy. Send all your unmarked money!--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Move it to Dingo page

They're basically the same subspecies of canid. Plus the article doesn't have alot of info.--4444hhhh (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The dingo article has almost no NGSD-specific info, so if that's a concern, deleting this article is counterproductive. I disagree with the "merge" you're attempting. Please try to use the merge process instead of just deleting this page. Tiger Khan (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend not to merge it, since the NGSD differs from the australian dingo in some aspects and therefore it is not sure whether they are dingoes are just closely related. By the way the whole debate about it's status (that debate is more disputed than that of the dingo whos classification basically depends on the classification of the domestic dog) should be adressed and that might be to much for the dingo-article, especially after it's revised be.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the question of NGSD status within canids is still uncertain, this article should remain. I'll be adding more research - still a valid page.

--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication at MSOW that they are considering subspecies recognition. Instead, it seems to me, they have relatively recently accepted more and more such animals as Dingos. See that article, Dingo, and look at the map. They have the dingo ranging up into southeast Asia now, whereas before, I seem to recall, only the Australian animal was considered a dingo.

Nevertheless, I see no reason to merge this article with dingo. Subspecies recognition isn't necessary to have an article. There are articles about every breed of domestic dog, so why shouldn't there be an article about every "breed" (if that's the best word for it) of Dingo? I not only maintain that this article should remain, but hopefully await articles on the Mikong dingo or other "breeds" or "types" of Canis lupus dingo should, maybe some day. Chrisrus (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This can be done. However it only makes sense if there is enough info and if that info is "unique" enough for the dscribed population. Right now only the Singer fullfills those criteria. There is not enough specific infos about Thai dingoes do justify a separate article. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough information on the "Thai dingo" to qualifiy for a stub- or start- class article, at least to hold the place so the orgainization scheme could be set up?

Also, I noticed that some names I recognized of some east Asian dog breeds, which do have articles (Jindo for example) are mentioned by your "Canids" article (thank you) under the C.l.dingo section where they give the foreign-language equivilents of the term. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that they seemed to be saying that, in their expert opinon, they have judged animals such as the Jindo to be more on the C.l.dingo side, rather than the familiaris side, of the "domestic dog" ligature that MSW3 seems (to me, at least, I'm told I don't understand it) to be drawing when they put that term in brackets under the comments section under the two non-"wolf" subspecies.

By the way, I find MSW3's decision to call the ligature there "domestic dog" slightly unfortunate for us, because our use of it in such sentences as "the dingo is a domestic dog" seems to have at least the potential to have the effect on the reader of indicating that all of them are equally domesticated. Those on the C.l.dingo side, as we all know, often make better wild animals than they do domesticated ones, the opposite may be said of those on the "familiaris" side. So while even though MSW3 calls the ligature (what is the correct term for what MSW3 is refers to when they form a group under the same level by adding a word in brackets under the comment section to unite a group of two or more taxa at the same level as others not so tagged?), even though MSW3 adds adjective "domestic" to the name of the C.l.familaris-dingo "union", does that mean we absolutely have to if the effect on the reader, who is supposed to be assumed to be completely uninformed, might not get it? My point is, why not just call it "dog" instead of "domestic dog"? This would jive fairly well with common usage, and could be justified on the basis of our Wiki Edict to prefer common, as opposed to technical, terms wherever possible: most people already think of all the other subspecies as "wolves" and both familaris and C.l.dingo as "dogs". On the other hand, when speaking under the level of the ligature, where we speak of dingos as distinct from "dogs" (which MSW3 seems to me to be provisionally allowing us to choose to do, whenever conveniet, such as when Wikipedia talks about "dingos interbreeding with domestic dogs"); in such cases, only familaris is intended by the word "(domestic) dog". We could I suppose refer to domesticated' dogs, as opposed to dingos. Whew! What interesting, but confusing problems nature/taxonomy can hand the English language/Wikipedia!Chrisrus (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really read what is written. I already told you that there is not enough information on Thai dingoes and the unclear status of many asian dog-populations on whether they are dingoes or not is mentioned in the dingo-article. And I don't think that you are doing anybody a favour with your suggestions. "Dog" is even more unclear than domestic dog. "Domestic dog" is much more in tune here with the scientific data. No offense but are you sure that you are not opposed to the term domestic dog because you don't want the dingo to be one, because that would somehow make it "less valuable"? I'm asking this because this is actually very common, especially conservationists and animal activists mostly regard wild or better shy beings as more valuable as those that live with humans (no matter in which way) and the term feral out of reasons I can't fathom often has a bad meaning for those people.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Update of this page

Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)All, please note that I'll be updating this article in the upcoming weeks to better reflect the status of scientific research

--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomic and conservation status - at odds with each other

Something is not right in the article. It lists the name Canis lupus hallstromi for these dogs and references "Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press" as a source. However, when you look on the website of this version that name is not found and hallstromi is a synonym for dingo. Furthermore the box lists them as vulnerable, however that source uses the dingo, so both clash. Because, if the singer is a separate subspecies, its conservation status (considered the inbred and small captive population) would more likely be "critcially endangered".--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The taxonomic status for the NGSD was reclassified to canis lupus dingo from the previous hallstromi. This is where the confusion comes about. Tomcue2 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tomcue is correct. In a way. First of all, MSOW doesn't even list NGSD or AU Dingo. It lists only Dingo. Also then in Dingo, they have Domestic dog listed as a common name. But being a common name only, "domestic dog" as used in MSOW carries no taxonomic designation. It is simply a common name, more like a nickname. Hallstomi is in the synonym list. Familiaris is no where to be found. Recall now that we're looking at dingo here, not NGSD or even AU Dingo. The synonym list of names is a history of names previously used. If you'll notice, they are listed in chronological order. So in summary, regarding NGSD taxonomic classification as related by MSOW, MSOW has literally left NGSD and AU Dingo out of the book. Why??? The why is simple. In 2006 vortex I think, came on here and asked about NGSD taxonomy. Now 4 years later, the issue is still being debated. The 3rd edition of MSOW was written between 2003 and 2005 and was published in 2005. The 4th edition has yet to be published. AT THE CURRENT TIME IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER HAS BEEN GIVEN REGARDING THE NEW GUINEA SINGING DOG TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION!!!!! So what makes Inugami or jkoler matznick mrhorseracr or whoever think they can make decisions the whole of the scientific community has been debating for many, many years without decision? Sounds dumbern a stick to me. From here, it sounds like a waste of time for two wiki editors to think they can outguess or out debate the "big dogs" in the scientific community. Who do they think they're kidding?? In the meantime, who is suffering from debate and indecision? The NGSD themselves, that's who.. NGSD are out there in "no man's land" with no scientific status. They cannot be officially designated as being endangered or in need of protection. Basically, the scientific community is driving NGSD to extinction, has been for a number of years and we hope these scientific whiz kids are really proud of themselves. Here again, basically, then, it is up to people outside the scientific community which would include any individuals and zoos whether public or private, we need still to carry the ball for these dogs until the scientific community gets off their duff and makes some taxonomic and origin decisions. Once again, mrhorseracer and Mr. Bargho, you are wasting everyone's time here as well as the dogs you are writing about. Stow it!!!! Several of us think editors should simply drop the entire taxonomic and most of the origin subject and write up what is known to be fact. Then allow readers to visit other sites to find our all the theory, conjecture, and opinions. If we can present to the public a clear description of these dogs as well as the problems they're facing that would be a good thing, seems to us. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's being a dingo would have to harm conservation efforts. After all, the fact that a wolf subspecies is plentiful in Canada doesn't seem to harm the conservation efforts of those to keep it from becoming extinct in the USA, so why should the fact of dingos in australia endanger efforts to conserve those in New Guinea? It's still a fascination revelation, I think, that dingos live anywhere besides Australia. The New Guinea Singing Dog may be closer to the primordial dog than any other on the planet, who knows. They are very important to conserve, in my opinion, in captivity at least, for that reason alone, and I applaud the efforts of those who work to maintain that genetic line alive and thank them for their work no less if they make a living or a reputation doing so. In fact, these motivations probably are behind most progress in science, and in any other field.

Although I don't have any say in the matter, I don't really see them as "just a dingo". They must have been isolated from other dingos for a very long time, probably much longer than any breed, and seem quite differnt from familiar dingos. For example, they seem to have a climbing ability, and a wonderful call that sometimes sounds like no other dingo or dog. This is my personal point of view and opinion of the NGSD, however, and as such have no place whatsoever in what the article should say. I just make these comments in the hopes that they will foster a more cooperative atmostphere. If writing a factual article about the New Guinea Singing Dog harms conservation efforts or not, that's still my only agenda. I'm not here to save them. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Dingo & Singer are not all that different if you see the two side by side. Most of the physical differences can be attributed to the physical environment including the prey that they need consume to thrive. To answer your question as to why Matznick wants to have Singers re-classified as a seperate species, only her followers or Matznick herself can answer that. I do not know of anyone else who has studied the NGSD in recent history that agrees with the seperate species theory. Regarding a Singers climbing ability, a 6ft chain link enclosure that is dig proof will contain them so an NGSD's climbing abilities are limited. They cannot ascend a tree that is perpendicular to the ground unless the trunk of the tree is narrow enough to allow the Singer to use a fireman style method. To breifly explain, the Singer will wrap it's front paws around the narrow truck while using it's back legs to thrust it upward. I have witnessed this happen only when the subject Singer is motivated to while giving chase to a cat, squirrel, etc. Tomcue2 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FE, Inugami's interpretation of MSOW is incorrect. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Why?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear it!

Can anyone get a sound file for this article? Readers of this article want to hear what the modulated howl sounds like! The addition of such a sound file would improve this article.Chrisrus (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Chrisrus - Per your request, I have added several audio/video files. They can be accessed in the external links section. As I am a novice on Wiki, let me know if there is a better way to present them. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The addition of an external link to the National Geographic Page on the NGSDog is a welcome addition to the article. An even better addition would be to upload a sound file into the article so the reader could hear the sound without having to leave Wikipedia or this page. Unfortunately, Nat Geo doesn't allow such things, but someone might have a recording that they'd be willing to let us have. Chrisrus (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some quality a/v files of NGSD's (my own included) actually singing on que but as a novice to Wiki am unsure how to post them to the page. Please help or (if it's possible) provide a direct email on my personal talk page and I will send you the files to post. Tomcue2 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though I've been doing Wikipedia for some time, I don't know how to do it either. I think you have to upload it to Wikipedia Commons and then you can link to it here, but I've never done that before. I'll see if I can find someone else to help, but if anyone is reading this and can do so, please advise. Chrisrus (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Coloration Description is Incorrect Afraid to Change It

Please, my wife and I would like to make a comment or two. We know from personal experience of having raised and conserved NGSD for over 20 years that the coloration description in this article is one of the parts of this article that is not accurate. My wife and I probably have more hands on experience with NGSD than any one else in the world, but we are not published and our work therefore goes unnoticed and looked down on by mrhorseracer since she perportedly represents the "scientific" community. Here in this article, for example, myhorseracer deleted my writings because they aren't published. We would like to make contributions to this article but our hands are continually tied by mrhorseracer who obviously knows more about posting to wiki than we do. Perhaps someone would like to publish our knowledge so we can share itt with the world so folks will better understand Singing Dogs?? Now on to the original subject: Coloration. We have personally owned and seen NGSD in the following colorations: Tan with white markings, Red with white markings, Amber with white markings, Mahogany with white markings, Black with tan markings, and Black with white markings. The first Singer carcass taken out of New Guinea was in 1897 and it was black and white. Therefore, I submit that mrhorseracer's editing and referencing in regard to coloration is inadequate and needs to be edited Because of the threats to me by mrhorseracer wherein she warned me not to make any disruptive edits and having observed and read about the fights you folks have to go through in order to make any edits on this page without them being deleted by mrhorseracer, I am hesitant to make any changes in the article for fear of being ousted from wiki. My wife and I would appreciate any advice as to how to make constructive changes to the article without getting into a fistfight with mrhorseracer. Thank you, oldsingerman20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a link to your site showing the dogs, proof of pedagree, I'm sure that'll be a reliable source for a statement to the effect of "NGSDs come in such-and-such a color." Just be sure that it's not a breeder's site. If we didn't have that rule, you'd have breeders coming up with new colors of poodle or some such posting links to sell dogs on Wikipedia, and then we'd have chaos. There are all kinds of sites about different kinds of dogs that are treated as reliable sources.

There are very few sources on this animal. This man is clearly an expert on the subject, and therefore a valuable contributer in this case because there are practally no experts on the NGSD. How many people in the world could possibly know more about the color variations of the dog than he? The fact that no peer reviewed paper mentioned that they can come in such colors is not surprising, the authors couldn't have claimed to have seen every NGSDs, or even very many. If this man and his wife can provide reasonable proof of ancestry and photos of dogs with those colors, how could anyone think it's a hoax or a mistake? He may be wrong about this or that, but where is the reason for doubt about this? Please, if anyone reverts him, let it not be one of his enemies, but someone with real reason to believe he's in error about the colors and ancestry of his dogs or propogating a hoax. Chrisrus (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Chrisus there are many sources of data on Singers, and don't be fooled into thinking TomCue and Oldman are the only sources of data and they are the experts. We actually have a detailed list of behaviorial traits (Don probably has observed many of the same), but the problem is that they are just observation, just like Don's - this can readily verify, we have not added them to the article. I've asked Don to respond to me on my talk page so we can agree on physical traits language, but he has not responded as of yet - a minor changes or two is all that is recommended, before I make the change. In fact he missed a color (he has never seen it, our group has)Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

mrh, You are absolutely correct on one issue. I have not and will not respond to you on your talk page or anywhere else for that matter. After what we have seen here on wiki we feel your overtures of seemingly innocent cooperation are in reality an act. Anyone who hides behind a phony name, calls their challengers names that insinuate belittlement such as "cueball" or "oldman" and say things such as "missed a color our group has" clearly shows bias and prejudice. We have no intention of having further fistfights with you or with your "group". We notice you apparently plan to keep "your groups color" a secret if, in fact there really is an omitted color. Many times colors names are actually synonyms. The fact that I may have missed a color is not surprising as I have never claimed to be perfect. BTW, when or if your group decides to share this secret color with the world, be assured you will need to provide some proof that it in not just a hoax. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Settle down Old -you boyz are have been just as bad - but maybe we can get over the hump. Did not plan on keeping it a secret - just have not added it yet. Oh, BTW, wiki frowns on disclosing names and personal emails addy--Mrhorseracer (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC).

Coloration

I have made changes in the physical description/coloration paragraph. If it's not too much to ask, I'd like to let it stay this way for the time being. Other changes are coming. Believe me. Personally, I'm really tired of being pushed around by someone who hides behind a phoney name. Everyone in the Singer world knows the name oldsingerman20. They also know that oldsingerman20 is knowledgable regarding Singing Dogs. What qualifies mrhorseracer to take over the article. Let's see some credentials. Has this person even ever even seen a Singer, let alone owned one? All we see is a lot of reference to a single author and organization. Again, we'd like to see what qualifies mrhorseracer to dominate this article. If mrhorseracer has more experience with Singers than my wife and I, I will gladly offer an apology. Let's give respect to people who know their subject and quit playing hide and seek trying to hurt each other. oldsingerman20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I Horseracer was probably in the right to revert your edit. I only reverted him in the request that he respond to you here explaining why, just to be respectful and cooperative when reverting a good faith edit like yours. If he does it again, I really won't be able to stop him without edit-warring, and I'll tell you why. First, while I presonally believe what your contribution is true, how do I/does anyone know for sure? Without a citation from a reliable source, we're just taking your word for it. Otherwise, for all we know, you could be just making it up. It's a good example of what we call "original research", someone who independantly learns something and uses Wikipedia to publish their findings. You're not supposed to do that; you get it published elsewhere and then we can cite that here. Please see that these are good rules because you can see why we must have these rules.

But then again, those aren't really "rules" but guidelines, because they apply to anything likely to be challenged. I don't know why anyone would challenge you on that, but if Horseracer wants to undo your contribution again, until it's properly cited, there's little I or anyone else can do about it other than hold them off temporarily until you can offer some kind of proof. Horseracer probably knows that there are all kinds of uncited things allowed to stand so long as they seem true to reasonable people, in the hopes that someone can cite them some day. That's why we have that "Is it true?" section on the welcome page asking if anyone has citations for various uncited reasonable claims all over wikipedia. The idea is to add things which improve the article, even if they aren't as good as they could be. You could argue this point of view with him if he does deign to discuss things with you here instead of just undo you with a note without civilly discussing stuff with you here. I doubt, for example, or at least hope, that he won't be such a stickler for the citation rules that he would revert your contribution of your own sound recordings of the NGSD, something that would definately improve this article greatly, even if they would not be as good as a sound file from an objectively reliable source.

Anyway, are you absolutely sure that those dogs you personally witnessed were %100 NGSD, not any kind of hybred or mixed breed? Why didn't the cited source mention those colors, do you think?

‎Chrisrus... Let me try and make sense as to what has been going on with the NGSD page. In order for you to fully understand Mrhorseracers motivations for deleting gobs of oldsingerman20's contributions' without asking for citations or having any measure of courtesy, some history needs to be provided. It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his contributions which you will better understand by the end of this long post. So grab as seat and let me begin.

20+ years ago, Senior Ecologist Dr I Lehr Brisbin along with oldsingerman and a couple others helped to retain a few of the ISIS listed Singing Dog population in the USA by taking in the Zoo specimens as they were being bounced by them. The cause of the zoo exodus had to do with the USDA's re-classification of the Singing Dog and Dingo to just another domestic dog breed. The Singing Dogs taxon was changed from hallstromi to familiarus. As far the zoos were concerned it made the Singing Dog an undesirable animal to house. The USDA guidelines at that time required a zoo that has domestics care for them at a level that was not cost effective. A once a day feeding & watering no longer applied to Singers & Dingo's. After Bris (Dr Brisbins nickname) and friends gathered up a group of Singers, he obtained a research grant for the Singing Dog. In 1996 Bris formed the New Guinea Singing Dog Club of America and sat at the point. Bris had many irons in the fire however and not enough time for them so he sought out someone to do the research and produce documentation for on the NGSD. He found Janice Koler Matznick who was (at the time) a modestly successful dog behaviorist. Not certain what her education status is today, but she had no scientific or genetic credentials. Bris handed Janice a pair of female Singers to study and to produce the ethogram on them. Janice then sought out a male to breed some litters and to sell some Singers to supplement the grant monies. She found an undocumented intact male Singer at an exotic pet store and documented it (via Bris's ISIS account) and started breeding. She further volunteered to take over Bris's Club and renamed it to the NGSD Conservation Society. She then built a board of directors at her choosing. From 1997 to the present, that board is primarily made up of folks who own singers that she bred and sold to them.

With pretty much nobody else really caring about the Singing Dog, once Janice had completed her writings they were the only game in town. The one place to go for info. Janice tried to further the recognition of the Singing Dog by making every possible effort to have the scientific world re-declare the Singer as a separate species. That effort has failed and now with the new DNA studies showing the Singer & dingo to be virtually identicle, the singer as a seperate species is an even less likely concept.

After meeting oldsingerman (a onetime supporter of the Society), I realized that he has both an understand and passion for the NGSD that would rival anyone in the world. He has not produced any documentation on them so technically speaking, he has no credentials. Oldsingerman & I eventually realized that we had the same feelings about the Society and it's goals. We decided to break off from the Society and form our own organization and have done so (NGSDI).

We are undoubtedly with less credentials but on the net there is now a 2nd option for casual researcher when it comes to learning about Singers. We eventually decided to become Wiki members and add in some info and a link or two so that the folks with descendents of those Singers that left the zoos for the exotic world would have a place to go for help. The Society will be cordial to someone with an undocument Singer, but will make little to no effort to trace down a bloodline for you unless you are part of the inner circle or on the Board itself.

With all of the above now said, I can confidently tell you that mrhorseracer is a board member or actually board members (plural) for the Conservation Society. In fact, mrh is not even a mr but 1 to 3 different people that possibly include Janice Matznick herself. Google "youtube tomcue2" and you will see that one of my three passions is horseracing. mrh is (in essence) mocking me. That should also be evident by reviewing both mrh's and my talk pages.

I undoubtedly and admittedly have bias as does mrh but the day is soon coming where our contributions to the Singing Dog world will become notable and documented.

Lastly, I will address the coloring issue.

mrh and her organization have been desperate to either obtain or produce the black & tan coloring within their breeding program. Until they do so, they refuse to admit that the color exists and unless of course one of these black Singers gets into Matznick's hands, it will never be admitted to any breeding program or acknowledged as pure. We of course know better.

The bottom line here is that although none of the information that oldsingerman has contributed to the NGSD page is fiction, there is little documentation other then a website that we own to back it up. The Society is making every effort to keep only their information accessable to the public. That's why all of the deleted info and why mrh is so taken back by the external link that I added featuring the vocalization files. It's a 2nd link to our website.

As she is now threatening to arbitrate the issue, I have no interest in entertaining anything she suggests. Asking for citations I beleive is a wki editors right. Simply deleting ones contributions out of jealousy or spite is just plain wrong imo. Tomcue2 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cr Cr, We understand what you're saying regarding verifying the colorations. Perhaps someone will write a new article or book or something that can be referenced which will update the information. So much of what is written nowadays is a rewrite of things already said. Too bad! But then folks will simply live in the dark til the current info is published, looks like. NGSD are daily writing new history and tomcue and I have been doing our share. Now we need to have it published so it's acceptable to a world of doubting Thomas. Offering published proof of everything a person says is rather hogwash. It is not difficult to find photos and videos of some of the various colors and proof of their purity is documented in verified bloodline information. But we're not going to publish the studbook information any more than any other canine registry would publish theirs. The proof is in the bloodline information and photos. I guess I would need to ask just exactly who has proven that Singers come in the referenced colors. Where is their proof? Why do I have to prove conclusively that Singers come in colors other than tan to red? The only proof the authors had when they wrote their reference was that they'd either seen or heard that Singers come in tan to red. This is about stupid reasoning. As I said, it has been written and could be referenced that the first NGSD carcass taken in 1897 in NG was black and white. Suppose we can do DNA sampling on that carcass or perhaps on Jay Hoslers long dead black and white Singer? Let's get real here. Darkie was the founder of an entire line of Singers and he was a bit darker than red. Benji is a dark amber/mahogany and white from Germany so are we going to call Zoo Berlin liars?? We can trace several black and tan Singers directly back to the original NGSD foundation stock so is that proof enough?? The fact that you or other wiki editors doubt the source is, I'm sorry to say and don't mean to be offensive, simply a lack of knowledge regarding the Singer world and Singer history. Like the dogs we cherish, there is only a small handful of us who know the entire truth about Singers as well as the people who have conserved them. That handful will simply have to tell the truth about Singing Dogs without wiki's help it seems and in the meantime the general public will be treated like the proverbial mushrooms. Not all knowledge is published and unfortunately in this case, the people who are published understand wiki rules and are using those rules to control the media(wikipedia) If wikipedia were really interested in the truth of things, it would have a way for unpublished information to be read. As it is, with published information dominating the scene, wiki is really no more than a huge group of articles based on published sources that aren't necessarily true or up-to-date. Wow, what a deal! If you really want to learn about New Guinea Singing Dogs go to the NGSD International website or to the files section of New Guinea Singing Dogs Yahoo Discussion Group. If you want to read the same old rehashed information then read the references in this article. You may think I'm being rude or angry. I don't mean to be, but trust me , what I'm saying is the simple truth as evidenced by this masterful effort to suppress valid information. This is the only way I know to plead my case and others who suffer from the same prejudices and disrimination. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, TomCue, please take your soapbox, grandstanding and opinions to usertalk. But you are correct that you can't verify everything with a citation and that a little leeway is need - I agree. Which is why I have attempted to engage oldman with proper language for color. Again, you confuse spite with trying to be accurate and verifiable - Cr is correct to doubt. You can't play loose with the facts.Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NGSD Wiki Bully

Fear not oldsingerman20. Mrhorseracer has several times removed the link that I added with the vocalization files. I did it in response to Wiki member Chrisrus's request to hear some Singers. Chrisrus is okay with it but not Mrh. Seems mrh is not interested in others opinions or in anything that does not support her organization. I have been threatened with arbitration and then she (yes it's a she) followed it up with some suggestions two days later. I am no longer willing to entertain her opinions. I have not removed her workings yet she feels compelled to remove both yours and mine. Although Dr I Lehr Brisbin never hired you to publish NGSD material, your 23yrs of study needs to be seen and read. Tomcue2 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A better way to do vocalazation is to have an audio file in the commons and link to it, that will be done sometime soon and the unnecessary link will be removed. Much faster and cleaner than a link. Not a bully, just being bold. Don's observations I believe can be read on your clubs site.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

TomCue, Please take your personal rants and opinions off the article page and place them on mytalk pages. No one should care about your opinions - the point of any article is that it must be factual and Wiki has rules that we all must abide by to ensure accuracy. Please also don't confuse, being bold with being a bully. If you want me to show evidence here of your group trying to bully this group into make this into a "breeder" site I can, but this is counterproductive on improving the article. Lets move on. If Don has something specific he believes is missing, have him post something here on article discussion and we'll see if it makes sense.Mrhorseracer (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Tomcue, Thank you for your kind words. Chrisrus, Thank you for restoring the coloration information. oldsingerman20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining NGSD with Dingo

Our one concern irregardless of who is editing the article is that NGSD should remain separate from AU Dingo. If we wanted to combine all the world's Dingoes into one article, that would be OK by having a separate section for each one, but the article would be very, very long and would just be titles "Dingo", don't you think? It does make sense. On the other hand most NGSD people and the general public for that matter, don't think of a NGSD as a Dingo. Considering their DNA similarities, maybe we should consider NGSD as Dingoes. Does anyone know how DNA sampling has turned out comparing Dholes or Thai Dingoes to AU and New Guinea Dingoes?? There are numerous common links from thousands of years ago. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know dholes are a different genus and contrary to Matznick claims a descent for Singers from dholes was excluded. Mmmh. Thai dingoes were as far as I know proven to be like Australian ones. Singers were long thought to be at least a line that diverged some time ago. However I most the most up to date source says that they diverged about 4000 years ago from other dogs. How much New Guinea and the Melanesians have changed them is currently nearly impossible to tell (the old no-wild-studies problem).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Limitations

Those of you who are wiki and computer prolific need to understand that I'm a 65 year old man who knows about Singing Dogs is not especially computer or wiki smart. My wife and I are both educated and were teachers so we can contribut in some ways, but my typing is slow and some times my English are terrible. The other thing is though, that we eat, sleep, and breath Singing Dogs and are willing to learn almost anything that might help them. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph doesn't really make sense to us. I would like to rewrite it with everyone's permission. Then you can go in and edit my version. All we ask is that you don't just delete it the way mrhorseracer does and then revert back to the old, nonsensical version that exists at this time. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

what is wrong with the opening paragraph?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining Dingoes

Contributors, My wife and I only wish to throw this out for discussion. We are leaning toward recommending the combining of all the world's Dingoes into one wiki article. There are advantages to doing this. For example, a reader, no matter how unschooled they are, could easily review all the Dingoes in one article without having to skip around trying to locate information on each one. I know myself, that I would personally enjoy the "side-by-side" comparisons. Additionally, the AU Dingo page is sorely hurting. I can't speak for the others, but wouldn't it be neat to be able to see all of them in one place?? DNA studies have definitely established that the NGSD has very nearly the same DNA as the AU Dingo and is the closest relative to the AU Dingo. The two, AU Dingo and NGSD(New Guinea Dingo) have DNA very dissimilar to domestic dogs. In other words, the AU Dingo and NGSD are easily set apart from domestic dogs including New Guinea Village Dogs. It is easy now to differentiate between say, a Basset Hound and a NGSD. Purity in NGSD and in AU Dingoes is easy to verify. I ask again does anyone know anything about DNA comparisons of the other world's Dingoes to the AU Dingo. We don't know, so we"re asking. A name for NGSD used long ago and still used to some degree is New Guinea Dingo and for good reason. NGSD are, in fact, a Dingo. If an AU Dingo is a Dingo, then a NGSD is also a Dingo. Just thinking out loud. Your comments please. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Dingo should be an article like dog. It should say those things that are true about all dingos and those things which are unique to all dingos. It should review the basic types or breeds of dingos, but for the details it should send you to different subarticles specifically about each breed, including this article and another one for each type or breed. Chrisrus (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining Dingo Pages

Contributors, Yes, my wife and I have decided that we would support wholeheartedly a combined Dingo page and eliminate NGSD, AU Dingo and any others in favor of one article that would have an overview and then sections devoted to each Dingo type. This might also eliminate the NGSD War as the new article would be a fresh start and could be set up so no one editor could dominate. Our thoughts, but we would like to see this happen, Suggest we would have a wiki administrator qualified to oversee the project. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Old, there is a process called merge. You basically, on the Dingo article talk, suggest merging.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Very bad idea. Keep it with two articles. No matter how you put it you cannot deny that the Singer differs noticeably from the Australian and Thai dingoes, as well as dogs from Sulawesi and Borneo. Better this way and adressing the taxonomic topic of the Singer on its own page. I saw myself what would happen if the two were merged. Before I updated it, the dingo article claimed that dingoes in generally could rotate their paws and where good climbers, However there was no source and the only sources I could find even after months of research who said so, dealt entirely with the Singer. Better two articles. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor Additions to the Article

In case anyone wants to add these to the article or would just like to know: The gestation period for Singers is 62 days. Normally Singer females come in heat once a year unless they are not bred in which case a second heat will probably follow 2-4 months later. In North America females normally have the primary heat in the Fall of the year followed by a secondary heat in the early Spring. There have been a few cases when Singer females bred both in the Fall and then repeated the cycle again in the Spring resulting in a second litter. Normal litter size will vary from 3-6 puppies. Tan to red NGSD colored puppies are a darker coloration at birth and gradually lighten as they age. We have not seen any color descriptions of the darker colored puppies such as black and tan, black and white, mahogany and white, amber and white or sable and white. NGSD have dewclaws which are fifth toes located on the inside of the front feet. In most canines the dewclaw is functionless, but in NGSD it is a valuable tool used for climbing. The ears in a Singer are perked and lay forward as compared to domestic dogs whose ears lay back. This forward tilting is assumed to be an aid in sensory perception. In our observations of NGSD over the last 20 or so years, we have never seen a canine with more acute senses. They are extremely alert. This high volume of sensory input is thought to account for a certain degree of nervousness. It is easy to see why some native tribes in NG valued them as hunters. During walks with Singers on lead we have observed them hearing the rustle of insects in the grass. Their senses have been honed by thousands of years of selective breeding/survival of the fittest. Singers are highly intelligent as evidenced by having survived for thousands of years. The oldest recorded Singing Dog was named Old Dingo, nicknamed the Old Man. He lived to be 20 years and a month. He bred his last female at 16 years of age. His diet for the first 14 years was predominately raw chicken on the hoof. There has only been one recorded Singing Dog with eyes colored other than brown. He was bi-eyed in that one eye was brown and one eye was blue. He was a direct decendant of the first pair of NGSD in the United States that were sent from Taronga Park Zoo in AU and housed at the San Diego Zoo. There exists at least one black and white photo of two of the NGSD originally bred at the San Diego Zoo circa 1961. There are many other unpublished facts about NGSD. Although the current wiki article states the captive population does not form packs, there is no researched proof of that statement and in fact we are beginning to believe the social structure in NGSD is more complex than previously suggested. A large body of 38 NGSD was run together by John & Suzette Jones at Oakwold Kennel in MI daily over a period of several years and numerous reports have come in wherein small numbers of Singers have been successfully housed together. Therefore the statement regarding non-pack behavior is pure theory without any proof to substantiate the statement. No field research has been conducted on Singers in the wild. Now to registries. There are several canine registries for NGSD other than UKC. They could easily be listed unless editors want to discriminate against them and only list UKC. Of note is the registry and studbook maintained by New Guinea Singing Dog International. To our knowledge the NGSD International studbook is the most comprehensive NGSD bloodline record in the world. The ISIS System has some entries, but fundamentally ISIS is not a studbook or registry and it doesn't house nearly as much NGSD pedigree information as does the NGSD International studbook. There's a lot more information about NGSD that makes this current article look pretty darn sick. There was one question posed by cr asking why the reference didn't mention any colors other than tan to brown. Well first of all, we have never considered Singers as being brown. Most of them are red, some are tan and some are other colors, but never brown. Secondly the author simply didn't know about other colors. In other words the author was not up to snuff on his Singing Dog information. As to scientific research, you can hold all the "scientific" research about Singing Dogs in a small thimble. NGSD have simply never perked the interest of researchers. Even way back in their history, that first black and white carcass from 1897 laid in alcohol for many years before some scientist thought to study it. Science has actually ignored NGSD up until a very few years ago. In our opinion the "scientific" studies conducted during the last ten years are of questionable value and much over rated. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In Conclusion

I used to always try to find information on various subjects by going to wikipedia. That was before I found out how wiki works. Basically if a person wants to promote a friend's publication, they become an editor on wikipedia. Am I wrong? No, That is exactly what happened here. mrh came along and wiped out the old NGSD article, injected all of their friend's references and now owns the article. It's a really slick way to promote someone's name and publications. Very very smart because wiki guidelines support those actions. What tickles our funny bone is that wiki then has folks who come along and back up the promoters because the thieves, character asassins, and promoters can hide behind phoney names and by following the wiki rules are protected and are able to blatantly destroy the work of numerous people. Editors tell people they have to prove everything while at the same time assuming everything published and referenced is true. That's like the little girl who told her father not to buy a puppy because they all came from puppy mills because she'd read an article on the internet. The article the little girl read was a published article so it just had to be true! How totally foolish can you get. A crime has been committed here and no one seems to be able or willing to do anything about it. The sad thing is that it's going to be the dogs that suffer because many, many people will never be able to read the truth about them. If we were to put together a panel of Singer people who know about these dogs they could write an article that'd win a Pulitzer. Ah, but then those day to day bits of information are not what wiki wants. Wiki wants everything backed up with references and "proof". At the current time, my wife and I are taking care of 15 Singing Dogs a day, every day Sundays included. We've been doing that and more for over 20 years. Do you think we know anything about Singing Dogs? Do you wonder why I'm offended when someone asks me to verify my sources. Heck young man, we are the source. Where in the world do you think authors get their information? We tell them what to write. They write it. They get the credit. And then along comes a man who wants me to prove to him that I'm not lying. I do believe that's the ultimate insult. But folks like us still win in the end because we have the exclusive pleasure of knowing dozens and dozens of New Guinea Singing Dogs on a first name basis and no one can take those feelings and experiences away from us. Wiki is way out of line here. Wiki doesn't have a clue as to what they are missing by excluding information garnered directly from people who have first hand knowledge of a subject. Shame on wiki!! I think the wikipedia vision has been clouded!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE??

At least three of the people here already noticed that I have a new version of the article on my page that still needs to be reviewed and was planned to update this one. However, considered what the first reviewer has already done (mainly what damage) and how this article here looks, I'm seriously thinking that I should not do it, because it would be useless. Look what you have done, it is contradictory and doesn't even have the correct layout for an article. The article in the wikipedia of my country was small but at least correctly build and improved steadily. This one here only detoriates. So what is going on here?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are being too general in your criticism. Please be more specific. I can't tell what specifically you are objecting to. Chrisrus (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Inugami-bargho - I urge you to continue on and I applaud your efforts. Your article is derived from several different sources and is both neutral and factual. Wiki editor mrhorseracer has bias towards Koler-Matznick's NGSDCS. If you compare the edits made by mrh they match their website and Matznick's views, opinions, & writings verbatim. I am no veteran of Wiki but my vote would be to replace the current page with yours. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you don't have to worry about me in that case. I'm highly sceptic of Matznicks works, especially since she classifies the Singer, the Australian Dingo and all other domestic dogs as three different species and her arguments often sound like nitpicking. And I have some of the papers she lists as sources and I can say that e.g. her statement that all species of the genus Canis can produce fertile hybrids is not supported by these papers (they only mention mixing of gray wolvs, coyotes, golden jackles and ethiopian wolves). Furthermore, as can be seen in my article, others found different data than she did. And to be honest I trust my German sources more, especially since the main author Dorit Urd Fettersen-Petersen clearly stated that it is difficult to assess what is normal for a Singer because their "original state" in New Guinea is unknown and she makes clear that concerning Canis lupus there simply is no "seen one seen them all". I have not yet given up, but believe me I will be just as watchful as with the dingo-article. Ok since Chrisrus asked I looked closer to it and these are the points:

• The Physical descriptions section is above the Contents box. The space above the contents box is only for a short entry
• The entry is nearly half as long as the history and study section.
• Those two points itself show that the author had no idea about what is necessary, which would be surprising if I hadn’t seen people do stupider things, because there are countless good animal articles where you could simply copy the structure.
• The Infobox says the Singer is critically endangered however the source speaks about the whole dingo not just the Singer and the dingo is classified as “vulnerable”.
• To say they have a “fox-like” appearance is very inadequate, especially when there are pictures such subjective statements (let’s face if they are fox-like in appearance than a Jack Russel is also fox-like) should not be in the article.
• It says that there are populations in New Guinea but in the next sentence that there have not been any confirmed sightings until recently. Well there is another problem, just because some locals saw one dog and say that was a Singer doesn’t mean that it was one. And I can’t find the mentioned source.
• It says that Singers are dingoes but says “They are shorter in height at the withers than dingoes. The skull is slightly wider than a dingo's.”
• In my article I refused the New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society as a source because there is no proof of their reliability and since I have better source than that website I didn’t had to use them.
• Then there is the structure of the History and Study section itself: no comment on that (kids might be reading this).

You gotta admit this is no small issue. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Inugami - I think that Wilton and Savolainen's dna findings pretty much blow the Dingo & NGSD as being separate species right out of the water. The dna markers are virtually identical. I agree and doubt that we will ever know the true behavior of a Singer in the wild unless someone provides escape proof mountainous acreage where they can roam and be studied. Even then, the terrain is so much different and more difficult in the highlands of PNG. An expedition by James McIntyre in the mid 90's failed to yield a Singer. Link = http://vanuatu.tripod.com/dogs.htm The funds for that expedition came from Dr Lehr Brisbin's government grant. We have raised the funds to attempt to capture new bloodlines but we have yet to work out complete details for the expedition. Re the fox-like appearance. From personal experiences and observations I will agree with Matznick. I can count on one hand the number of times someone has seen my Singer and thought he was a Dingo. No person has ever called his breed correctly. There have been countless times that I have been asked if he was a fox. Just thought you should know this. Ironically, the largest collection of NGSD's ever collected in one place was a dog kennel in Hickory Corners, MI. The irony here is that kennel primarily bred and sold Jack Russell Terriers. Fox-like they are not. I had the opportunity to see all 36 of their Singers in 2007 and also evaluate the last 18 to leave that facility in Nov 2008 (see youtube). Lastly, we have had several folks visit our website, Yahoo Group, and Facebook page claiming that they saw a Singer while in PNG. In all cases these alleged sightings were in populated areas making the chances that what they saw was a pure Singer nearly impossible. If there are any pure NGSD's left in PNG, one would have to climb to the highest most remote areas of the highlands to find one. Reading McIntyre's notes, it's a taxing effort to say the least. Tomcue2 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How could anybody think that a Singer is a fox? What sort of fox looks like that? And even if, such a statement is unecessary when you have pictures.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cr, Inu & Tom, I don't know where the Hallstomi came from again. The last we heard was canis lupus dingo and next thing we know we're finding canis lupus hallstomi again. It should be canis lupus dingo . Regarding their "fox-like" appearance, the first time we heard the term used was by Dr. Brisbin who is, in the Singer world, considered "The Father of New Guinea Singing Dogs in the United States" As Tom as already mentioned, he wrote the breed standard for NGSD used by United Kennel Club. This is their link and you might want to read it. .http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/NewGuineaSingingDog The term "fox-like appearance" originated with him and has remained a part of almost every description we've read. I, the same as Inu have never really seen the fox-like connection. When I see NGSD my first thought is "AU Dingo". BTW, Dr. Brisbin is also the champion of the Carolina Dog aka American Dingo Also, I omitted a color during my ranting: ginger. Please don't make Singers sound like a domestic dog gone wild. There's no proof of anything. It's all theory anyway and let's put the Singer's best foot forward. I personally don't believe NGSd were ever a domestic dog. I think they were commensal taken to AU and NG and continued to be commensal for several thousand years. Inu seems to be correct in that the sightings might not have actually been NGSD, however, something that is sldom mentioned but I will look for is that NGSD have been heard "singing" during the night. This is true to Singer form and would be better proof of their presence than would accidental sightings. One way to study NGSD in the wild would be to reintroduce them into the wild wearing tracking collars. Maybe someday someone will take the interest and begin reintroduction and field research. I wish I was 20 years younger. I believe capturing Singing Dogs and taking them into captivity has hurt them more than helped them. Had captive specimens not been so readily available, any research would have to have been performed on wild specimens and researchers would have poured their money into NG field studies rather than a kennel in their back yard. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please lets go back to the topic of the chapter. What actually is going on here? How could that article go so downhill?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow..

...this page is intense. I had no idea what I was getting into. We're going to have to take this slowly here. I've got one agenda: That these articles be in line with the MSOW and the rest of Wikipedia. If that puts me on or against some side in this conflict, be that as it may. I am determined that this article say that this is Canis lupus dingo, and what that means; that it descended from Canis lupus familiaris, domestic dogs that were brought to New Guinea and then went feral. Over the millenia, they became a separate subspecies from familiaris. I worry about the effect on the reader about the use of the words "dog", "domestic dog," vs. "dingo". Both "sides" have tried to enlist me in the "NGSD War". I resist this, but if my agenda makes me your "ally" or "enemy", be that as it may. Chrisrus (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus - As long as your agenda is to factually represent the NGSD, you are my ally. The "canis lupus dingo" taxon is used by the International Species Identification System. I tried linking to it for you but the site is being revamped at the present time. Once it's back up you can use the find animals section. The common name search would be "Singing Dog" and the taxon search would be "canis lupus dingo" sub. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I promise I have NO agenda other than to factually represent the NGSD!Chrisrus (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for planning to provide that link. I am looking forward to giving it my undivided attention. Until then, (and, I'm sure, both at and after that time) I accept your assertion that they refer to the referent animal as Canis lupus dingo! as well, proving that, at least about that fact alone, there will be no conflict between the two reliable sorces. If you know of a reliable source that still disagrees about that fact, please let me know.Chrisrus (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The information available on MSOW is very little, actually. Please, everyone, review these pages, and review the facts with me. I'm not trying to be didactic; I assume you all know this stuff better than I do. Just let me make sure I understand:

1. http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738

At the bottom of this page, we can see the subspecies of Canis Lupus. Click on each of them and you will see, as you know, that all of them are "wolves" except for C.l. familiaris and C.l. dingo.

In other words, a Canis lupus individual may be either a wolf, a dog of the familiar variety, or a dingo, which as you know has domestic dog ancestors that went feral so long ago they are thought of as something slightly different than a familar dog, but rather a dingo dog, a separate subspecies.

2. http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751

Here is mention of halstromi. Halstromi is listed as a under dingo.

I understand that this is because they see it as a type or breed of "dingo", distinct from Asian mainland c.l. dingos or Australian dingos, at least according to MSOW.

Is there any disagreement so far? I pause to see if there is anyone who disagrees with my understanding of these two links and what they mean. Chrisrus (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked it too, it's not working. So there is only MSOW, however that one says that the Canis lupus dingo is a domestic dog just like Canis lupus familiaris. The entrance for the dingo is here and the comments section clearly says domestic dog. So why is Chrisrus adamant on saying that they are something different and citing MSOW as a source? And as for the classification I think you are doing a big mistake Chrisrus. The classification of subspecies is a much more complicated matter than that of species because it depends on where to draw the line. Corbett for instance wrote in the 2001 version of "The dingo in Australia and Asia" that theoretically you could seperate Australian dingoes in seperate subspecies because of their physical differences but just as likely could you classifiy every single human in his/her own subspecies. However, the mtDNA A29 that dingoes and Singers share fell during analysis right into the main clade of dometic dog types that contained 70% of the dog-mtDNA-types and that type was shared by some other dogs from Asia and North America. And as for the classification of Canis lupus dingo. According to "Managing the impact of dingoes and other wild dogs" this classification was chosen to "reflect the descent from the wolf and the uniformity of the dingo population" but the same could be said about many purebred dogs and many feral populations. Nonetheless if we cite MSOW as a source for the current classification nobody can just write that they are no domestic dogs because MSOW clearly says otherwise (and domestic doesn't automatically mean domesticated). As for your fears of those three words Chrisrus: You will have to live with that, what the term dog can mean is already stated in Wikipedia, domestic dog does now too (at least I hope that it wasn't deleted since I updated the article) and I mentioned the problems with the classification of the dingo and the Singer in their articles (in case of the Singer I mean my version of course).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards to this: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751, you are correct that it does say, under the comments, in brackets, "domestic dog". You seem to feel that this means that they are saying that a dingo = domestic dog. But as you know, according to MSOW, the domestic dog is C. l. familaris. As you know, the dingo is descended from C.l. familiaris, but is being listed alongside familaris as "C.l. Dingo (Comments: domestic dog)". Given this fact, the only meaning I can describe to this note is that they are noting that C.l. dingo is descended from the domestic dog, but is a subspecies separate from c.l.familaris.

As to your assertion that I am "making a big mistake" because, it seems to you, I am unaware that these things are complicated and filled with shades of gray and "depends-how-you-look-at-it" and "depends-where-you-draw-the-line" instances, please rest assured that nothing could be further from the truth. I am all about those gray areas. If you look at my contributions to Wikipedia, you will fine the odd page or two where things are relatively clear cut, but for the most part, if it's not some intermediate form, something like a shrew-mole or mole-shrew, something that is part this and part that, something that is on the line between X and Y, I'm usually not interested. Slightly tangentially, I am especially interested in English words whose referent does not have a single taxon that stands as a synonym, such as "whale", "wolf", or "worm",(I have a list on my User Page, if you are interested) and try to sort out the usual tendency for Wikipedia to try to force every such English word to line up perfectly with a technical, term from taxonomy. So please believe me when I say to you that there is absolutely no reason to remind me that such things are complicated matters of having to draw the line somewhere. So whatever my "problem" is, from your point of view, whatever is causing me to see things "incorrectly" from your point of view, it cannot possibly be caused by a mistaken impression on my part that everything is simple and not a matter of how one looks at it or where to draw the line. Some other problem must be the cause, therefore, of what you see as my failure to understand the facts correctly. (Be right back…) Chrisrus (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is out of chronological order, I'm sorry, but the posts are flying pretty fast and furious right now, and I have to stop from time to time, so I'm still responding to the above. I'll respond to the below later if necessary. I'm still talking about MSOW.

You bring up a good refutation of my understanding of what MSOW is saying when you point out that they have a comment, as we have seen, under C.l. dingo, which consists of the words "domestic dog" in brackets. You seem to me to be pointing to this as proof that they are saying that dingos and domestic dogs are the same thing. That's a persuasive arguement. I don't see it that way. I figue they can't be saying that because under the heading Canis Lupus they have a list of subspecies listing Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris. This, not a lack of understanding of the complexities of such matters is the fact that leads me to believe that they are saying that a Canis lupus animal which is not a hybred or some such is catagorized by them as one of the wolf subspecies, a dog of the familiar variety, or a Canis lupus dingo. If you can offer me some other explanation of what it means to say that Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo are two different subspecies of Canis lupus other than this, I'm absolutely open to hearing you out and changing my understanding of the fact that MSOW lists Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo as two different subspecies. What does it mean in other cases? Please take, for example, http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14200476, the giraffe, which has six subspecies. We normally read that, according to current knowledge, all giraffes will fall into one of these catagories, and, unless they are a hybred of subspecies or some such, will never be more than one subspecies. It is wholely possible that one subspecies of giraffe will give rise to another. If this is established to have happened, I would not be surprised to see a note to that effect on the MSOW subspecies entry to that effect, but I will take it that that fact alone does not mean that they are not both equal subspecies.

Reading over that, it seems a bit wordy, and so I would like to summarize by asking you this question: What does it mean, as you understand it, to say that C.l.familiaris and C.l.dingo are two subspecies of Canis Lupus? Put another way, if MSOW is saying that Canis lupus dingo = domestic dog, what then is Canis lupus familiaris?Chrisrus (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus & Inugami - The ISIS site is up and running http://www.isis.org/Pages/findanimals.aspx . I was mistaken. ISIS still lists the NGSD as "canis lupus hallstromi" and not a sub species of the Dingo or a domestic dog. I am really not suprised at this. The NGSD has had several names over the years but if you can aviod the domestic dog tag, from my limited canid experiences I would. I do know that the USDA declared the Singer & Dingo as a domestic breed back in 1993 but do not know why they did this. I also know that Senior Ecologist Dr I Lehr Brisbin actually convinced the UKC to list them as a domestic dog breed but only did this to backup ISIS. There is nowhere to cite this info. It came from his lips to my ears. Tomcue2 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they classified it as a dog breed because they thought that it was one? Many people confuse breed with type, landrace, etc. As for Chrisrus: I'm saying that with all the respect I can bring up right now. Is there something wrong with your perception and your logic? With your last words prove more and more that you insist on the "dingoes are not domestic dogs" because you want them to be. I don't know where you actually get your ideas from and I honestly don't care. Your logic doesn't make sense. You say that the entrence domestic dog under dingo means that the dingo is descended from domestic dogs despite that nothing on the page hints to that. Well we have a problem here because under Canis lupus familiaris there is the same comment and according to your reasoning that would mean that the Canis lupus familiaris is descened from domestic dogs and is a seperate subspecies. Furthermore you see the entrances under synonyms as "I understand that this is because they see it as a type or breed of "dingo", distinct from Asian mainland c.l. dingos or Australian dingos, at least according to MSOW." You actually think that the word "synonyms" means type or breed? What on the page gives any hint for that far fetched interpretation? Furthermore according to you there would be 58 types/breeds of domestic dogs because Canis lupus familiaris has 58 synonyms. And I know for a fact that the term ferus was an old term for one of the hypothetical ancestors of modern dogs back when it was fought that the dogs had several ancestors. And according to your reasoning there would be several types of Canis lupus lupus. As for the dingo entry: there are 10 synonyms and according to your logic that would make 10 breeds/types. Now that is plainright rubish, because I know a hundred percent that terms like "antarcticus", "macdonnellensis" and "novaehollandiae" are old names for the Australian dingo, which are no longer in use. Such terms were used in earlier times when one species got several names by several people. Back when Australia was called New Holland the dingo was called New Holland Dog. So with what do you come up now? Will you say that the comment under Canis lupus familiaris means something entirely different?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here I address only those comments in the post directly above which are directed to me personally. There may be something wrong with my perception or my logic, I don't know, but I don't think so. You don't seem to be able to think of any explanation for my statement "dingoes are not domestic dogs" other than the fact that I don't want them to be. Please be assured that I have no dog in this fight (no pun intended) and don't care if they are or are not. I am not a participant in the "NGSD War" and that this is not my opinion but rather my understanding of what MSOW is saying when they list c.l.familiaris and C.l. dingo as two separate subspecies. If for example, MSOW sees fit not to so list them anymore, and that could happen, I would change my understanding of what they must be, for the editors of MSOW seem to me to be in a position to know such things and I have no cause to doubt them. If, for example, they listed "C.l.dingo", or just "dingo" as a synonym on this page: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000691, (where they list all the synomyms for the domestic dog) I would assume they were trying to tell us that the dingo is a kind of domestic dog. Now, I don't know why they have chosen to separate C.l.dingo from C.l.familiaris. I assume it has to do with the morpholoy and the genetic distinctiveness. Even without that, however, it doesn't really surprise me that they've reclassified the Dingo as a separate subspecies because as I understand it, dingos are basically wild animals that don't really take as readily to domestic life in the same way that dogs do, and dogs are basically domestic animals which do go feral but don't really take to being a wild animal the way dingos do. Nevertheless, you do bring up a good question for me: why is there a note on both the familiaris page and the dingo page saying domestic dog in brackets. You seem completely convinced that you know for sure what that means - they are the same - yet you haven't explained the fact that they are listed as separate subspecies, thereby saying they are not the same.

Next, I'm sorry you understood that, when I said that the appearance of the word "hallstromi" (which, as you know, has never referred to all dingos in general, but only to the NGSD) as a "synonym" of "dingo", that they are saying that the NGSD is a type of dingo, that by saying this, I was asserting that all taxological "synonyms" are types or kinds of the taxon in question. As you probably know, MSOW and other such publications lists words under "synonyms" to note that the word in question had been used previously for the referent but has since been declared invalid for any number of reasons. In this case, "hallstromi" never covered Australian dingos, but what it did refer to are all dingos, according to MSOW. In other words this "synonym" is not really a true "synonym", but a "hyponym".

Anyway, what interpretation for the presence of the word "hallstromi" on the list of synonyms for C.l.dingo do you posit, if not the fact that they are signaling that any use of that word in older litterature as referring to an animal which they consider to be a Canis lupus dingo? Stated simply, what do you think it means that the word "hallstromi" is there? It's pretty clear to me, they are saying that they are putting all the NGSD into the taxon C.l.dingo.

Ok, I will make it shourt: 1. That link from you points towards the giraffe. **fixed -cr**2. If that was what you ment it is strange that you didn't say so. 3. I had given an explanation much earlier it was from "Managing the Impact of Dingoes and other Wild dogs" and was "reflect the descent from the wolf and the uniformity of the dingo population". 4. Further on the "Canis lupus" page: "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms. " And then they write "domestic dog" in both entries and you want me to think that they don't mean that they are both domestic dogs? Did it never occur to you that two subspecies are classified as domestic dogs? If they meant that the dingo is not a domestic dog and only a descent, then why didn't they wrote this? For this interpretation I am only using the page, nothing more.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed the link. More later. Chrisrus (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents: the dingo is a domestic dog that has mostly gone wild. It interbreeds with domestic dogs to an extent that nobody currently knows how many "pure" dingoes there actually are. This is even more true for the New Guinea singing dog. Both are currently mostly classified as canis lupus dingo, the classification has changed a lot over the years and there is still much dispute. In any case, the classification doesn't predicate anything about the status wild/domestic. Sincerely, --Quartl (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My input: The IUCN does not consider the New Guinea Singing Dog a taxon, which is supported by quite a few genetic studies that were published in the peer-reviewed literature. The dingo has been known by more than ten scientific names since it was first described, but is today considered a separate subspecies of the wolf (C.l. dingo ) that is distinct from the domestic dog (C.l.familiaris), which may or may not be genetically justifiable. On a side note, I cannot take anyone seriously who uses more than one exclamation mark per paragraph. --Cú Faoil (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's right; that's what exactly what MSOW says. It seems to me, anyhow. Who disagrees with this? What's all this fuss about? Chrisrus (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wozencraft in MSW3 recognizes two subspecies of wolf as domestic dog, Canis lupus dingo and C. l. familiaris. He calls the separation between them provisional (p. 576). There's no rationale given and no phylogenetic conclusion can be drawn from this little information. Like most synonyms of the species group hallstromi is a subjective synonym. Not a hyponym, which is nonsense in taxonomic context. As is equating synonyms with breeds. As is having a taxobox, when a population is not recognized as a taxon. -- Torben Schink (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what what MSOW says. Your book and the web site seem to say the same thing, but at the website they do give some rationale: "...it retains the correct allocation of synonyms...”. The conclusions that we can draw are only those that we can always draw upon learning that two animals are both subspecies of one species.

As for “hyponym” being “nonsense”, please think about that. Obviously, all “hallstromi” are C.l. dingo, but that doesn’t mean all c.l.dingo are hallstromi! MSOW has grouped the NGSD with the dingos, but “Poodle” and “dog” are only synonyms in one direction.

You are right that subspecies is as low as the MSOW and taxonomy generally go, but they have to think about lower levels from time to time. If, for example, someone had published a subspecies name for a variety of plant or breed of dog, what do they do with the old name when they correct it? Don't they just drop it in with the "synonyms"?

If you are saying there's no reason for the taxobox and it should be removed, I agree. Go ahead and delete it, I say. Chrisrus (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My "Wozencraft in MSW3" corresponds to your "MSOW". It is a printed book to begin with. What you quote there is no rationale. For subjective synonymy (hyponym is a linguistic term) look up article 61.3.1 of the Code, for taxonomic levels lower than subspecies start with 1.3.4. You seem to be unfamilar even with the basics of zoological nomenclature. Articles should be written by people who know and be read by people who don't, not vice versa. -- Torben Schink (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we're talking about the same thing. We're talking about this: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14000738, which is the exaclty same as your printed book except, I suppose, it has the potential for being more up-to-date.

If "...it retains the correct allocation of synonyms... is not at least part of their rationale for the separation, what then is it?

I am obvioiusly familiar with the basics of zoological nomenclature, but not much more than that. It's unclear if you are trying to be helpful or to prove your superiority by refering me to section such-and-such of "the code". It would be helpful, if that is what you want to be, if you would answer these questions I have asked you or point out what is wrong with the article. I'm asking you directly, what it means that the word "hallstromi" is a synonym for "C.l.dingo": that all NGSDs are dingos (I assumed this was obvious), that all dingos are NGSDs (obviously not), or some thrid option? While you may simply be out to prove something about yourself and me, the important thing is to know what the what the New Guinea Singing Dog is so we can say so clearly in the article. Chrisrus (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The online version isn't more up to date. It has more errors than the print version and is thus less reliable. It is also incomplete. Does not affect the issue at hand, though. I'm asking you directly, what it means that the word "hallstromi" is a synonym for "C.l.dingo". This means that populations represented by the holotype of dingo and those represented by the holotype of hallstromi (both of which are not identical, thus they are subjective synonyms) are taxonomically identical at the subspecific level. No more, no less. But this is basic nomenclatural knowledge! Vernacular names are not within the scope of MSW3 except at the species level. I've seen you display the same ignorance of zoological nomenclature over at the squirrels and I'm not willing to spend more time on you. Why don't you spend your time on topics you know more than zilch about? Nomenclature of organisms, both scientific and vernacular, clearly is not your forte. Over and out. -- Torben Schink (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you say exactly, as I've looked up your buzz words and they are not hard to understand. You’re still not saying anything different than me. Saying that the Aus. Dingo and the NGSD are identical at the subspecies level ut not at a subspecific level (that they differ below that level isn’t in MSW3, but you and I agree that it’s true) is no different than what I am saying: that “hallstromi” and the Australian dingo are two types of the same subspecies. It's very simple, you need to special training to see it. The relationship of the NGSD and the Aust. dingo to the term "C.l.dingo" is analogous to that of two varieties of the same flower, or that of Cocker Spaniels and Bloodhounds to C.l.familiaris: they are two types of the same subspecies. (I'm going with the provisional separation at the moment.) If they were plants, they might call them “varieties”, but as they are dogs, English prefers a different word. What ignorance am I displaying?

With regard to the article squirrel, you will notice that the article eventually arrived at the same form as I was asking for; it doesn't equate the word "squirrel" with the term for "squirrel family of animals" anymore, which is all I cared about. I feel completely vindicated whenever I see it. The same will happen with this article, once you all get over yourselves and forget about my "audacity" to say so as an outsider moving in on your territory, or whatever it is that motivates you to resist my saying so in this article and dingo: Aus. dingos and NGSDs are two types of C.l.dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, with all due respect, you are wrong and are currently demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of the topic you claim to be discussing. This article should and must be based on the scientific literature, not on your arcane personal interpretation of what the authors supposedly meant, implied and connotated when writing said literature. Please familiarise yourself with the scientific method before making further claims about this topic. Thanks. --Cú Faoil (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing to me how you people can argue without disagreeing. What am I wrong about? Please see above what I'm claiming that the litterature says, and tell me if you still think it's wrong. Agree or disagree: the NGSD and the Austrailan Dingo are two types of C.l.dingo. Please don't tell me what you think of me or what I should or shouldn't do. Just fill in the blank in words such as would be appropriate for the article: The New Guinea Singing dog is __________. Chrisrus (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

__________currently classified as part of Canis lupus dingo but has nonetheless an unsure taxonomic status, due to the observed differences and the fact that nearly nothing is known about them in the wild. Everybody here has already stated what your problem is and if so many people tell you that you're wrong, your "audacity" seems more likely to be stubborness. Stop playing the victim and the misunderstood. You had plenty of opportunity to work on this article long before I started working on it and nearly all the referenced marterial was available for at least two years. You did work on it and still everybody could see what condition it was in. I was very lucky when Tomcue or Osm20 asked about the new version of the NGSD-article because they were helpful. You were not, your work was either unnecessary or close to downright vandalism.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

ISIS vs. MSW3

We have to have some kind of authority on Wikipedia or we will have chaos. Some seem to be saying that that authority should be ISIS, not Mammal Species of the World. I've been looking at this ISIS site for a short while, and think it's probably the ultimate authority in terms of facts such as how many of which species exist in zoos around the world. It does not seem to be intended to be the authority as to how many species genea and species there are in the Urotrichini and every other taxonomic question we've ever had on wikipedia about mammals. For that, we use Mammal Species of the World. To understand why, see their home page, where it says, and I quote:

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3) is a database of mammalian taxonomy. It is hoped that this database on the World Wide Web can be used as a convenient on-line reference for identifying or verifying recognized scientific names and for taxonomic research. The names are organized in a hierarchy that includes Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily, Genus, Species and Subspecies. Records include the following fields:

•Scientific name •Author's name and year described •Original publication citation •Common name •Type Species •Type Locality •Distribution •Comments •Status •Synonyms The citation for this work is: Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp. (Available from Johns Hopkins University Press, 1-800-537-5487 or (410) 516-6900, or at http://www.press.jhu.edu).

This third edition is enhanced by the identification of subspecies, and by the inclusion of authority information for all synonyms. Further information about the book and about the contents of each field can be found in the preface and introductory material.

This online list was compiled under the auspices of the American Society of Mammalogists. Copyright 2005 Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights are reserved. The data in this checklist of mammal species of the world are being presented for non-commercial, personal, and collections management use only. Copying or redistributing these data in any manner for personal or corporate gain is not permitted. A list of the authors responsible for various portions of the text can be found here.

For an analysis of new species found in the third edition see: D. M. Reeder , K. M. Helgen, and D. E. Wilson. 2007. Global Trends and Biases in New Mammal Species Discoveries. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University, 269:1-36. pdf [ click here].

This project is in collaboration with the Division of Mammals of the Department of Vertebrate Zoology at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution and The American Society of Mammalogists.

The scientific names from the MSW3 database are available as a custom dictionary that can be used with various Microsoft Office applications. To download the dictionary, right-click on this link and choose 'Save Target As ...' (or the equivalent, depending on the browser that you are using). [Installation instructions for custom dictionaries vary depending on the version of Microsoft Office that you are using. To start, try here.] Thanks to Doug Kelt, UC Davis, for creating and sharing this dictionary.

In contrast, ISIS's "Mission and Values" page states the following:

ISIS delivers and supports the world’s most current, comprehensive and reliable source of knowledge on animals and their environments for zoos, aquariums and related organizations to serve institutional, regional and global animal management and conservation goals. By 2010, ISIS will be recognized by our members as a top performing non-profit organization delivering a powerful customer experience. We will be measured by implementing a state-of-the-art ZIMS software program, doubling the current funding from alternative sources, increasing membership annually, and having a high-performing organization that lives our values and beliefs daily.

It is the mission of ISIS to facilitate international collaboration in the collection and sharing of knowledge on animals and their environments for zoos, aquariums and related organizations by achieving the following Goals:

Supporting, maintaining and ensuring the continuous development of comprehensive software systems and tools Providing services that are essential for members and prospective members to manage the animals in their care Serving as an independent, impartial body which promotes the development of standards and practices that enhance the integrity and usefulness of data on animals and their environments Obtaining the broadest possible participation in data collection and sharing for zoos, aquariums and related organizations worldwide Promoting the general scientific usage of the knowledge beyond animal management Planning and managing the resources (human, financial and technological) needed to meet all of these goals

I hope you will all agree that, in cases where these two sources disagree, MSW trumps ISIS. This should include the referent of this article, which ISIS calls Canis lupus hallstromi/Singing dog, but MSW has not called it that for some time, if ever, and instead indicates that all hallstromi are reclassified as Canis lupus dingo. (Unless, of course, you have some other explanation for the fact that they list the word "hallstromi" under "synonyms" under "Canis lupus dingo".) Apparantly, for reasons I can only speculate about, ISIS has not yet updated the taxonomy of this animal. I suppose it might have something to do with its primary interest in zoos, some of whom might not be happy about the change. Or maybe they just haven't heard the news from whatever source they get their taxonomic info from, because I know they don't claim to do that job themselves. In the case of Mammals, that's MSW's job.

Besides, by saying "MSW trumps all", I'm just quoting what was told to me by other editors when I had sources that disagreed, even when it really ran in conflict with my agenda. For example, I was not allowed to re-name the article Shrew-mole (Neurotrichus) "American Shrew-Mole" even though my reliable source, http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html, and several other sources called it "American Shrew-Mole" because if MSW doesn't call it that, I couldn't call it that, no matter who else did and how much the system of articles and how the progress of my disambiguation project for the term "shrew-mole" would be stymied and how difficult it would make it for the reader. This all on the grounds that, as I was told at the time, "nothing is more authoritative." If you disagree with that, please let me know so I can go back and revisit that discussion. Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "American Shrew Mole"Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, that MSOW is the better source. To keep with the topic, there classification ofthe domestic dog in several subcategories doesn't make sense, it sounds as though they are classifying breeds.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do You want to take only one source? Take one source for taxobox all over WP. But in the article tell the reader the different points of few: you have NGSD as taxon, NGSD as c.l.dingo, as well as as dog breed (what would be c.l.familiaris). And all of the authors have reasons for their point of view, which should be here in the artcle. --Anka Friedrich (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Acutually I meant for the taxobox. For the name section the other names have to be mentioned.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this is not an infrequent occurrence to have taxonomic disagreements. Maybe we should look to see how other articles have solved this? I agree that subcategories don't make any sense at all.Mrhorseracer (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the taxoboxes have no lower category than subspecies.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not talking about the taxo boxes, but rather Anaka comment on talking with the article out how we truly don't know where Singers fit--Mrhorseracer (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Anka, in reply to your "why only one" question, for several good reasons. First, It's the scientific community's sythesis of all the various papers and sources. If we didn't do it this way, every time some expert suggested a change or objected to one, we wouldn't know what to put in the taxobox, for example. We don't evalutate the relative merrits of these things, we just report them. If there is a paper that disagrees with MSW3, and it's all well and good that we say so in the appropriate place and way, but in leads and taxoboxes and such where we have to say what an animal is, we have to look to some authority. I didn't understand that at first, but after looking at such problems in hundreds of articles, I came to see that doing it any other way would be impossible. Chrisrus (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding Info

A published article to help Inugami. The explorer who captured the first pair of NGSD's but failed to prepare a contained envoronment was Ellis Troughton. http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-magazines/dogworld/dog-world-new-guinea-singing-dog.aspx Tomcue2 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense but Throughton isn't mentioned in the article. Furthermore I would be very reserved to use that article. That bloomy language makes me question the objectivity. Ina ddition the last Singer I met was the direct opposite of aloof and reserved he acted like many other dogs who make contact and don't bother with you afterwards.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Inugami, We agree. Tomcue needs to go back to a more original source. If NGSD are well socialized they will be friendly to most people. Their natural instinct is to be "aloof" and check out a potential danger or threat. Aloofness is a defense mechanism that has helped them survive all these thousands of years. Additionally we have observed NGSD who, from birth to death, never did trust certain people. We have also observed that aloofness can be a learned response passed from mother to puppy. We have observed these "exception behaviors" numerous times over the years and in fact still do observe them every day when we care for our Singers yet even with all these thousands of contacts we have not been able to ascertain exactly why a NGSD will be friendly to one person but not to another even when the person being shunned is consistently friendly towards the Singer. The shunning is due to lack of trust in that the Singer does not trust the human, but we can't figure out all the factors that trigger and/or perpetuate the shunning. There are times when a Singer is "spooked" for no apparent reason. We have no choice but to believe that Singers are better equipped to analyze their surrounds than are humans. When combined, their acute senses and intelligence place them far above humans. The volume of input from their senses sometimes overpowers them and they become "totally anxious". When this happens they retreat from the situation in order to evaluate everything as well as to "calm down". The only Singer you will ever see "out-of-control" is one that is cornered with no escape. If a person wishes to even touch, let alone hand capture a cornered Singer that person must have the ability to establish significant trust between himself and the Singer prior to "reaching out". My wife and I have had thousands of encounters with Singing Dogs and the only times one of us has ever been bitten was when I made the stupid mistake of picking up a Singer who'd been injured by another canine. 0sm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) There is no time limit regarding how long an animal will be aloof. Aloofness is totally dependent upon the level of trust established between the animal and the human. A Singer may shun a person for only a split second or it might shun you til hell freezes over. Also and this is very important, trust must be reestablished each time a human encounters a Singers. The aloof characteristic is a very strong trait. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

osm20 I did not post the information for Inugami to reference it. I just wanted him to understand why the taxon was hallstomi (Sir Edward Hallstrom) yet Ellis Troughton was given credit for the first NGSD capture. It has to confuse folks to read about Hallstrom bringing the first pair to Australia but the see that Troughton was credited. Alice Bixler (who wrote that article) obtained her information from the book "A Celebration of Rare Breeds" Tomcue2 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

tomcue. Sorry, I misunderstood your intentions. I am aware of Alice Bixler as well as the rare breeds book. I read it circa 21 years ago. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomcue. According to my Info it was Hallstrom how gave the order to get the first pair and Troughton named them after Hallstrom. If you have other infos I need a source.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Inugami - That is about how I have it but in this order. You can reference the Aussie biography of the two online. Hallstrom funded both expeditions (Troughton's capture and his own). The 2nd expedition was Hallsrom's and Troughton was then the person to study and declare the NGSD as it's own species. Thus "hallstromi" was the taxon Troughton gave them. Troughton was still given credit for discovering them via the first capture even though they never made it to Taronga. Tomcue2 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

According to "An updated description of the New Guinea Singing Dog, the first pair made it to Taronga. So again, what is your source? Without a source it doesn't matter whether your information is correct, because then there is no proof.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A better way to show vocalizations

All, I have been having a running conversation with TomCue on the best way to provide vocalizations for the article. It is a great idea that should have been long ago. He believes a single link to his site is the best way. I disagree, it is neither clean or neutral. We have not come to a resolution. A better option is to have no links at all from any site, but rather keep everything within wiki and link one or more midi files from the Commons area of Wiki. Let's have a constructive dialog.Mrhorseracer (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I have no experience with sound-files in commons but one thing I know, they need to come from a source, so where do we get them from?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest that I convert our sound-files to the proper format or if TomCue has one already, we use his.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean with "our sound-files"?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our sound-files means any one in the Singer Community--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone owns a good such sound file, or is aware of one which is public domain or which we can get permission to use from the copyright holder, the best thing would be to upload a file directly into the article and place it alongside the text describing the sounds. That way, the user can hear it without having to navigate away from the page or otherwise interrupt the flow of their reading. Chrisrus (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus is right - this is where we should be going--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer to quartl

Hi quartl, It's great to see yet another person participating. Please allow me to address your questions. Let me preface my reply by simply saying first of all that there are two distinct Singer populations. We are not overly concerned about either population being hybridized. For the most part breeders and owners of the captive population have been careful to preserve their purity. We believe there are several reasons for this: #1 There are so few of them that there have only been a few people involved so hence less chances of error, #2 The number of breedings has been limited, #3 Most Singers are kept in "Singer proof" enclosures whether it be a zoo, house, pen or building so there are relatively few escapes and relatively few accidental breedings. #4 Most Singer owners realize that they have an animal that is very unique in the world(there is no other animal physically equipped to "Sing" like a NGSD) and historically, owners have wanted to preserve these unique characteristic. Hybridization would definately alter characteristics. We always have to remember that Mother Nature has been "fine tuning" Singing Dogs for thousands of years and Man's contribution so far has been minimal. The idea that NGSD can be improved by hybridization is ludicrous. No right minded Singer breeder would intentionally hybridize a Singing Dog. As to hybridization in the wild, there is no verified information available, but what we theorize is that due to NGSDs personality traits of shying away from humans we feel that there are probably some purebreds still tucked away in the remote highland regions of NG. There have been a few sightings of canines suspected to be NGSD and there have been a few reports of hearing dogs Sing. There are natives still alive who would be able to identify probable NGSd simply by hearing their vocalizations. Recall that humans and NGSD have lived side by side in NG for thousands of years. Singers have existed as commensal animals meaning that they have been there on the outshirts of civilization but have not depended on man to make a living. Singers are so intelligent that any hunting attempts from villagers would drive them away. A Singer's response to aggression by humans would be to leave the area as soon as possible. Therefore, aggressive villagers who hunted Singers for food have actually helped preserve Singers by driving them away. On the other hand, villages that befriended Singers by being kind to them actually contributed to their demise by offering them a safe haven inhabited by European Domestic Dogs that have interbred with the Wild NGSD and created Singer Hybrids aka Village Dogs. The Singer world now has the DNA studies conducted by Dr Alan Wilton etal, and we know there is at last is a definitive way to ascertain NGSD purity. Those of us who have been closely associated with Singing Dogs for a number of years have long awaited this landmark study and are extremely pleased that it took place and that the results were positive. Our grave concern with NGSD lies in inbreeding. There exists a sufficient number of captive Singers to preserve the subspecies, but it is going to take smart breeders who know their stuff to accurately preserve what we have in captivity. The second thrust of major importance is to facilitate field research in NG while simultaneously preserving the captive population while establishing specimens who can be reintroduced into a preserve or preserves located in NG. Reintroduction is obviously a huge task requiring manpower and money, lots of money. Public interest and sentiment are required to attract financial support. Again, thank you for your interest and questioning. Both are extremely important. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop doing this. Really your not doing anybody a favour. Really, not even you.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Inu, please stop with this nonsense. Talk pages are for discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject. Bee4Real

Inugami, Please forgive me. What am I doing wrong? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You're promoting the NGSD. You're writing all this stuff, nobody asked for. This page here is for improving the article not for something like that. And to be honest with stuff like that you effectively erode any notion of credibility.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu and Bee, I really don't understand where you're coming from on this, but will bow to your hostility and will shut up. If you decide somewhere along the line that you'd like to know something about NGSD, you may reach me at oldsingerman20@yahoo.com. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Olds, what they are saying is that you are using wiki improperly and that the article page serves as a civil forum to improve the site - your post is more of a private email.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess we won't be learning any more interesting things about the NGSD from this obviously knowledgable man. That makes me sad.

The rules are in place for a reason, and should only be applied if that reason exists. If breaking them doesn't harm anything/one, or if following them does, or any combination of the two, we are instructed to WP:IAR otherwise we will be in violation of the unfortunately named Wiki:Don't_be_a_dick. Note where it says "Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?" If you don't like reading his posts, why wouldn't it be a better solution just to ignore them them? We want to encourage this man's participation because there may be ways to use his knowledge to improve the article. He obviously has a love of teaching about the NGSD and wants to contribute, something rare on wikipedia for an expert to do. I gather there is bad blood between your two groups, but many people come here to learn about the NGSD and ask questions about it and these are good things he can help with and they don't care about your "war". You seem determined to drive him away. Chrisrus (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a war, in my mind. Don has valuable insight, no one has ever said and yes, give and take is in order. But wiki has rules to make sure the article is factual. If Olds doesn't like the rules, like said in one of his rants - he should step away from wiki and let his website speak.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No it was simply advice. If you call that a war that is your problem. I'm not here to make enemies but I also want stand aside when I think that false information is stated.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Crisrus, Thank you for your kind words and bits of encouragement. Your points are well taken and appreciated on this end. I do think however, that although my intentions were honorable, I was in the wrong. I also feel the remarks by Inu and Bee were rude and out-of-line, but I also feel that Inu has been working very hard trying to get his version up-to-snuff and was tired of the interruptions. Our emotional investment and years of work are too great for us to be subdued totally so easily and yes, we are both retired teachers. I am simply learning the rules and the limitations. My first goal now must be how to present material that can be accepted on wikipedia.

As to the war between the two groups, yes it exasperating to be blocked at every turn in the road. As evidenced in the exchanges we've all read, there are people out there who dislike me so much that they will go to great lengths to cause my wife and I heartache. All this is not a problem to be addressed on wikipedia and that is another reason why I need to keep still. I will not be responsible for bringing the battle onto wikipedia. It has no place here. I refuse to stoop below a professional level. My wife and I are outgunned and we know it. Please excuse this sidetrack but I felt this editor deserved a reply. There need be no further comments regarding this issue. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page (it's use)

Adding to the above discussion, I was not aware that the talk page had to be filled with referenced and cited info. I always thought that stuff was for the page itself. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong however. Unfortunately Chrisrus is right imho. Looking at it from my seat in this audience, if you want to learn about Singer genetics, reference Alan Wilton. If you want to find published articles about a Singer, Matznick would be the source. If you want to know something about Singers that has not been published or might offer a differing opinion, Osm20 is the place to go. He was not hired to study the NGSD. He does it by choice. His claim to fame is not his knowledge of the NGSD. He shares it with you by choice. His income is not dependant on the NGSD. He sold 2 in 23yrs.

I have nothing for you to reference or to prove my statement so don't ask. I do know most everyone in the usa that has had extensive exposure to Singers. There is nobody in North America who has spent more time with and with more NGSD's by shear numbers then Osm20 (Brisbin & Matznick included). The one exception might be Osm20's wife. Tomcue2 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomcue, Although my wife and I applaud your impassioned post, for the sake of truthful literature we have to reply in the following manner. Extensive exposure to NGSD does not necessarily mean the person has an extensive knowledge of them. Additionally, just because a person or persons has opted to not make money off them does not mean they know anything about them. To profit from animals such as NGSD is a private matter. The acid test for credible personal knowledge is the fact that others are accepting of the knowledge that person offers. The same is true of scientific research. Just because it is "scientific research" or "published works" doesn't make it credible unless those reviewing it confirm it as credible. It seems to me that this wiki article when finished(if ever) will be the result of a "consensus" among numerous editors who review all of the available information and decide what is credible and what is hogwash. People will believe what they "want" to believe no matter who presents it or how it is presented and that is the way it should be in order to preserve free thought. However, then too, the rules must be flexible enough to allow for an honest and diversified exchange. Additionally, those participating in the discussion must be accepting and open to other editors ideas and perspectives.. Without an honest exchange there will exist only a dictatorially produced article which will be biased and prejudicial. To produce an accurate and meaningful article about New Guinea Dingoes all of the editors are going to have to respect the individual knowledge and expertise that each editor brings to the table. The discussion will have to be conducted in a civil and professional manner. Otherwise the entire experience will be an exercise in futility and will end in chaos. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When you want informations about Singers from an independent source, you need to try Dr. Dorit Urd Feddersen-Petersen from the Domnestic Institute in Kiel.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

inu, Yes I would like that. Would it be possible for you to email his contact information to oldsingerman20@yahoo.com?? Thanks very much. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done I'm sending you the link to her profile right now. I will look for some more stuff, If I'm not mistaken there is another research station who has Singers too.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's Get On With the Article

My Wife and I are eager to get on with the actual construction of the article. Should we invest more energy in the old article or does Inu have his ready to go? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

New Article

In response to Osm20. My artcile was ready and has just been published. Since I couldn't write everything in the commentary I choose to say it here. For those who wonder where the link on the vocalizations has gone, although the site had a different adress it looked exactly like the website above and obviously had the same content, therefore the same page would have been presented two times. Under see also I deleted the dingo-link because that article is already linked in the NGSD article. On the sighting of a dog in recent times near Lake Tawa: I looked that book up at Google Books (the book was The ecology of Papua Part 1) and the search engine could find singer, but nothing about a sighting or Tawa and the sentence had originally a completely different source. However, if anybody has that book and can verify it and also tell as exactly what the book said, the information can be re-entered. The sighting of a Singer would be breaking news for many, however because of that we must be sure to know what the author said because it doesn't have to be one just because an observer said so. This is a delicate topic so the rules have to be strict. And for the article itself. It was already published and peer reviewed on the German wikipedia and completely approved, just for info. And for those who wonder where the "Critically endangered" of the taxobox is. There was no site who definitely stated the status of the population as such, so any classification in that regard would be against the rules. Furthermore the article clearly states that the captive population is highly inbred and that the wild population might be extinct and if anybody doesn't get what that means, nobody here could help then. Ok people, fire away.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, It seems no one wants to start so I will. Since I'm 65 years old and don't care if people think I'm dumb, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last sentence. The article is very thought provoking. It represents a great deal of effort. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah the brave and the bold ;-). If you mean the sentence "Ok people, fire away", (I don't think you mean the last sentence of the article) another way to say it would be "Bring it on". Or just: "state what you think". As for the article being thought provoking, the whole species Canis lupus is. Despite all the reasearch on wild wolves, there are still huge gaps and plenty of wrong stereotypes around. It's even worse with domestic dogs. Any article on Canis lupus is practically designated to provoke thoughts, especially since they time and again come up with new surprises (the first wolves to permanently settle in my land did that on an army area that was still in use and have you ever heard about the subway dogs of Moscow?). And I would be surprised if that problem would be solved in the next 50 years. But back to the topic: just state what you think and if you have reliable new data, present it. By the way, none of you happens to possess the book "The Ecology of Papua" do you, or know a library or a person who has it? The report of a Singer would be interesting.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, My error. I should have quoted the sentence. I don't understand what you mean when you say, "Furthermore the article states the captive population is highly inbred and the wild population might be extinct and if anybody doesn't get what that means , nobody here could help then." I don't understand what you're saying with that statement. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh that was the one. Well it had to do with that the conservation status was not in the taxobox. As I said the red list doesn't list them seperately and therefore there is no reliable source for such a statement. Since the dingo entrance lists the dingo as vulnerable with the population "decreasing", however, vulnerable doesn't cover the state of the NGSD population. Nonetheless the article states that the captive population is highly inbred, that the wild populations is either small or mixed with other dogs and that the captive population is still small. And you have to be at a big loss of logic thinking not to grasp what that means.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, I'm at a big loss of logical thinking. Please explain to me what does your statement mean? I'm sorry to be so dense, but I just don't understand what you're saying..osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, second try: When you have a certain population were the only definitely known specimens are in captivity and no verified sightings exist for over 30 years and that captive population is descended from only 8 specimen and is today still small; than it is only logical to assume that this population is endangered due to low numbers and inbreeding.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • • all - the new article is the violates WP:User, NPOV and the normal process to modify an article. I will undo the wholesale edit and sugggest the following approach: 1. Build consensus on section names and titles. 2. Edit sections one at a time, week or two between sections to give editors time to review, post questions and modify as they see fit.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What in Inugami's new page violates a NPOV? He has worked long and hard gathering info from both North American and European sources. There is much more content and would be far easier to just tweak his creation then to toil over adding to the old page. Tomcue2 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you bother to see how other editors incorporate major changes - apparently not. You are wrong on "far easier", short cutting the process while easier is still wrong. We need to do this step by step in an orderly basis--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I had basically the same article in the German wikipedia and no one felt violated because of it. So where is the violation?? By the way horsracer, "good" job. Replacing the better article with the worse one. That makes so much sense. By the way, what sort of sections should I edit one at a time? That article only had the entry (which isn't one at all) and the history-study section. And by the way Mrhorseracer, it's not as though you didn't knew what was going on, that article was on my page a longe time, if you didn't like it you had sufficient time to say something.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. No one looks at the German version since few know the language. This is about your lack of knowledg on how the wiki wholesale process should work, not content. Again, some good content AND some wrong content AND content that needs verification. I'll post on discussion page tonight my suggested step-by-step process to enhance the article.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh really. Which content is wrong, which needs verification and where do you know that from? And if, why didn't you say so before? You had plenty of time and didn't use it. And now anybody should believe that you do that for the best of the article?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't have "plenty" of time. Chill and reply to the new section later--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you had enough time to notice it. And it was on my page for quite a while.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Singer Sighting

Good news people. I found another source that states such a sighting and seems to be reliable. It says: At least one animal was seen by one of our local guides, who scavenged a freshly-killed Dorcopsulus wallaby from it for our scientific collection. We also collected singing dog scat samples for potential future dietary and genetic analyses. Our local assistants assured us that the dogs at Lake Tawa were truly wild-living dogs, and there were no villages near our relatively remote camp. I have to check the rest of the source first, but it looks good at first glance.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well sorry people, horseracer seemed to think it is a good idea to erase all the work. Everything gone now.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is a process to incorporate significant changes to the article - you chose to disregard and blasted everything out. I outlined the steps to incorporate this sanely. Let's have a constructive dialog on how to add your suggested content. Yes, there is good work by you. I'll be the first to say much should - but you don't do it all at once.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors, Isn't there some way we could put the two versions side by side on our screens so we could compare and edit??? As for doing things sanely, maybe mrshorsracer has changed her attitude nowadays since there are some bigger guns involved, but she showed no mercy when she came in and "blasted" the old article out of the water and replaced it with her version. She didn't ask. She didn't warn. She didn't even wiggle her rattles. She just wiped out a lot of people's work on her whim. So she has no right to lecture protocol and if she does discuss it we're not going to believe her anyway. "A pot should not call a kettle black." I think it's a pretty lousy move to go in and destroy others work without warning and then, once you have your version all neat and tidy and in place and in control, then outline steps and procedures to be followed by others before they can edit your version., even threatening others with arbitration and threatening to have them banned from wikipedia. I hate to say it, but I think this article's construction is going to the dogs. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, last I checked, you boys wiped everything out and started again - a big no, no - learn the rules--Mrhorseracer (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only one who things so. And like I said before there was plenty of time when the article was only on my page and all the "major players" here knew that. And I said that I was going to update it for months so nobody can say, that there was no "warning". In fact the new one was based on the old one. I edited it on my page because that's what we do in the german wikipedia. Editing it step for step on the public page over weeks like horseracer suggests is useless. What if someobody wants to read it during that time?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, I agree. Even as dumb as I am about wikipedia and computer work in general, I had no trouble finding your work or reviewing it knowing you intended to replace the old article with yours. The only hypothesis we can come up with regarding mrshorseracer's amazing surprise might be that this particular mare is a horse of a different color or perhaps she had a memory lapse. There was plenty of warning. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Singer names

Names used for Singers seems important especially nowadays with computers because of key words. There are a couple more names in common use that we thought could be added: New Guinea Dingo, Stone Age Dog(don't really care for this one). I think the name New Guinea Dingo is important for several reasons. It also has historic value as it used to be used quite a lot especially in Europe. Could it be added to whichever version is used? Also, what's the latest taxonomic classification now? I see C.l. dingo is back on the page. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We need an entire discussion on names - adding an new name called NG Dingo, is confusing. But if you really think Singers are part of Dingos, you should merge your content with the Au dingo article.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

mrsh, What the heck are you talking about. Check the taxonomic classification. read your Singer history even some of the modern lit on Singers. Why are you arguing for not including a name that is already in use many other places including the taxonomic classification??? Remember the Wilton etal DNA study, Duh!!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure the taxonomic classification that someone changes is correct - still in dispute. Why do you want to create a new name - you are just confusing the issue.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether she is open for arguments. As for the names, well we need at least something like a Newspaper-article or a book on the subject. Otherwise we can't just add names without a reliable source. There was something similar in the dingo-article about someone who wanted to add Degger Dog but had no reliable source.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, That's OK really and we'll find the sources. It's a nit pick anyway. In a year or two when the various names become included in writings, other names can be included. No big deal. I was thinking I'd seen New Guinea Dingo is some German references someplace too. The major thing should be that NGSDs are considered a wild dog from New Guinea, not a domestic one. Neither the current DNA study by the Wilton team of 37 researchers or the fact that NGSD have a once-a-year heat cycle would support the domestic dog label. Additionally there has been quite a lot of literature written that clearly states NG natives have not domesticated NGSD. Rather, they captured and tamed them. They have not intentionally bred them in any organized fashion. The same is true of other wild dogs that have had contact with native tribes or peoples. The Carolina Dog is a good example. Even the New Guinea Village Dogs seem to have simply roamed about mostly not owned by anyone. Actually that lack of intentional breeding of NGSD by the natives is part of the reason the NGSD living near villages became hybridized. It's only logical. In the western world we immediately took precautions to protect and isolate NGSD specimens for the very specific reason of preserving their purity. For example, at our facility we don't tolerate accidental breedings and go to great lengths to prevent it. Even the accidental breeding of close bloodlines is taboo since our goal is to enhance and preserve genetic diversity. Those of us in the United States and Canada who started conserving NGSD 20 plus years ago realized immediately that our goal in life had to be to preserve the genes. I received an email last night from a family who purchased 3 NGSD in 1972-73 from a zoo.(I know, there's no literary reference to these 1970's zoo to private owner sales. but they did exist. The author just didn't know it when she wrote her stuff.) Even back then in 1972 those people realized the importance of protecting and perpetuating something NG natives failed to do. That is why the captive Singers for the most part are pure NGSD, not hybrids. We've been very careful to protect the genetics as well as keep good records. There is no way to ascertain the purity of dogs sighted in the wild without conducting a definitive DNA test. In the wiki article we can say nothing definitive about whether or not there are still pure Singers in the wild. No one knows one way or the other so the wording needs to be thought through carefully. Neither do we know one way or another whether or not the sighted dogs are hybrids so we cannot even postulate that they might be or our words become subjective and suggestive. We have to stick to the facts and say that although sightings have been made, no specimen or sample has been obtained that would prove the sightings purity or impurity. Singers are certainly not a feral dog. There is no research or evidence to support the definition of feral. By the same token, many of us subscribe to the theory that NGSD have been historically for thousands of years living in a commensal state and we'd like to see that theory proven, but alas there is nothing to support it either, so it seems to us it would be best to call NGSD "wild dogs" for that is in fact, what they really are. Any other designation injects subjective conjecture into the writings. No room for subjectivity in a wiki article, Right?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense but there are a few flaws in your statements: 1. a one-year-heat cycle also accours among domestic dogs. 2. The vast majority of dogs are not selectively bred. 3. The Eipo tribe did breed the Singers as far as I know. 4. Why is the Singer not a domestic dog? Or more precise, what actually is a domestic dog in your eyes?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho. I'm not offended. Heck most of the time I'm not smart enough to even realize when I've been offended. I've never debated this issue with anyone except myself and that really wasn't much of a challenge. I'm quite sure that you have debated it with others so you've had some practice. Therefore, I'm at an immediate disadvantage. Additionally, there are other fish to fry that are of more importance, so let us put this debate on a back burner for now so that I may have a chance to get my ducks in a row. There is just one question I would like to ask you: What canine(s) do you consider as wild dog(s) that should not be thought of as domesticated? If you will answer this one question for me, it will allow me to conduct further research into this enigmatic query. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now you good to the core of the dilemma. I call it "domestic=domesticated?". It's easier in my language because the word for domestic dog (the literal translation is house dog) has no similarity with domestication. The problem is here, and I still haven't found the solution, what do you see as domestication. If you equalize domestic dog with domesticated dog and domestication as direct artificial selection by humans, than the wild Singers and Dingoes are clearly not domesticated, however neither would be my own dog since she is not the product of direct artificial selection, and it would be the same for every feral and street dog. However as far as I know all have certain traits that are regarded as specific traits of the domestic dog. Therefore before we proceed you have to tell me what you mean by the word "domesticated", otherwise we two might argue in completely opposite directions.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, It is difficult for us to really understand what you are saying. The language barrier is very confusing and what you are saying is perceived by us as being unclear and basically double talk. In the interest of the dogs in question, we suggest that you drop the use of domestic and domesticated completely and call NGSD a race or a landrace. The fact that you have a cur dog as a pet has nothing to do with NGSD since NGSD are not cur dogs aka mixed dogs, mixed breed, mutt, crossbred, hybrid, street dog, village dog, or any other synonyms. They could be called wild dogs and I think that would be accurate for they are in fact a wild dog. I think landrace or race of dog would better describe them as a landrace is a group of animals similar to a breed that has developed special same traits over a period of time. Let us call them dogs, but stay away from the controversial terminology and ideas associated with the words breed, domestic, domesticated, feral, and hybrid. These terms are viewed by NGSD conservationists as negative and belittling and you will never be able to convince NGSD people otherwise. In other words, by pursuing the use of the words, feral, breed, hybrid, domestic and domesticated, you are basically alienating all Singer conservators. Why would you want to make so many enemies? What's the logic or what would be your reason for wanting to try to stuff these words down especially American and Canadian conservationist's throats? If you stick to "wild dog" and/or "landrace" when you speak of NGSD you will be using "neutral" terms not beset by controversial remarks. If you simply want to belittle researchers and argue with people, then by all means continue along your current course, but we're not sure that your course is compatible with wiki guidelines. Are you within wiki guidelines to question and belittle every researcher anyone brings up who disagrees with you? Are you within wiki guidelines to write an article that is basically negative toward the animal you're supposed to be describing? In our opinion you are slowly removing yourself from the mainstream of this revision by projecting yourself as being always correct and not allowing the ideas of other editors. We think you are backing yourself into a corner both in this article as well as in the dingo article. This is how we see things at this point. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Numbers in Breeding Programs

Editors, As we know, there are actually two captive breeding programs in place for NGSD that are sponsored by the two organizations: New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society and New Guinea Singing Dog International. There are also several private, unaffiliated breeding programs. The current NGSD wiki page(the one current in view)only mentions the Conservation Society's program which they call the Controlled Breeding Program. The other affiliated program, the one sponsored by New Guinea Singing Dog International(NGSDI) isn't mentioned. In order for the article to be unbiased and not prejudiced, we feel the NGSDI program should be include. The proper name for the NGSDI captive breeding program is The NGSD International New Guinea Dingo Cooperative Breeding Program. Unaffiliated breeding programs have historically been reluctant to make their names known publically due to numerous privacy issues and we will respect their rights to privacy. Would it be possible to have this information added? Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly seems fair to me - or to make it even more neutral, don't talk about one or the other, but rather genericly - would need to see the exact wording.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I can't add it. You quoted from an old 2004 abstract reference so even though the information is outdated, biased, prejudiced,(the word "documented" is only used by Dr. Brisbin, Matznick and the Conservation Society) and inaccurate(I doubt that there are 50 captive NGSD being bred worldwide)it stays in place for the world to read so they don't even yet understand just how threatened these dogs really are!! How totally frustrating!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. ;-)--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An Idea

Editors, I have an idea and at first glance, it may sound frivolous, but since this whole NGSD issue is so intense, why don't we see if we could agree on a short paragraph re Singing Dogs(and just use the names New Guinea Singing Dog and NGSD) and then put in every link(no references because they're almost all accessible by links anyway) we can find on the internet(that are acceptable by wiki) and let readers go to them by themselves. That way they could read all this old outdated research and hypothetical hogwash on their own and we wouldn't have to argue about it. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree with your idea - the whole wiki concept is to work collectively for the better article - we will get there. You are basically saying give up - wrong approach. Also, just because a reference points to research that you consider "old" does not invalidate it.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mrsh, We certainly agree that age does not necessarily invalidate as evidenced by the old geezer typing this post. Regarding old research I'd say its validity depends of how well it was constructed at the start and how relevant it is nowadays. When a 6 year old reference is quoted as saying there are less than 50 NGSD in the documented breeding program, that is saying two things. One, it's rather meaningless since "less than 50 could mean 49 or it could mean 2. Dumb! It could also mean that the information is simply out of date nowadays but is great history if you want to point out how poorly Singers have fared within the Documented Breeding Program since right now there aren't probably more than 50 worldwide.. So what happened with the Documented Controlled Breeding Program? What happened to all their documented breeders?? Went sterile? Poorly managed? Hummm... If you would follow up the statement with current information which you didn't, the statement would have some meaning and value. So basically you have offered old, invalid information which has only served to brag about there being some sort of high class breeding program called "documented" that has failed miserably. It seems silly to brag about and reference a program that has obviously failed. Perhaps I read the sentences incorrectly. Perhaps less than 50 six years ago is better than less then 50 today. I'm not even going to comment on the credibility of your notion of "working collectively". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Breed of Dog???

Editors, I can buy into the idea that NGSD could be considered a breed of wild dog. But at least in New Guinea they are and never have been a domesticated breed of dog and they cannot be feral because to be feral a dog has to have been domesticated first and then reverted to the wild. There is no body of evidence to show that NGSD have ever been domesticated in NG or before NG for that matter. Just because someone transported them to NG from another land doesn't mean they were domeestic animals. They may have been captured and brought along as food for the voyage?? Who's to say? They do meet all the criteria of a breed of wild dog. Such is not the case for those Singers in captivity. They have been evolving into a breed of domestic dog for fifty +- years. How have others handled this? How about Besenji's? 0sm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that there is no body of evidence that they have ever been domesticated?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, Why would you say they have been domesticated?? osm2oOldsingerman20 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is evidence for this yes. Their morphology and the fact that the five that were sent to Kiel came from the Eipo tribe that breed them as social partners and playmates for their children, that is very likely. And since you are a breeder, don't you also select which one mates with which one? And further, "domestic dog" doesn't mean domesticated, not when you define domestication as artificial selection by humans, since in that case any dog that is the product e.g. of two street dogs would no longer be domesticated but it would still be a domestic dog.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A Path Forward - A Suggestion to a better article

Fellow editors, as you know I strongly disagree with wiping the existing NGSD article clean like it was done this week and replacing with entirely new content. This is the wrong way to approach improving an existing article, regardless of whether specific content is right or wrong. A couple of items to talk through first.

1. Taxonomy - the taxonomy is anything but clear and I believe the current change to Dingo is wrong. I need time to articulate proposed text that address the confusion. For those that believe that NGSD should be part of the Dingo article, you should merge your material with them and leave this article alone. We should have an entire section of the article devoted where the NGSD fits or doesn't fit, including theories (backup with research, we hope).

2. Let's agree on the article sections title and the general content to be included within said sections. A good article does not try to be . Concise is better then a rambling mess. Let's look at established article/template first and not try to create everything from scratch.

3. After agreement on sections, let's take a stab at the actual text. We have most of it written in all probablity from the proposed new article and from the existing article.

4. Finally, let's build a quality article - lots of help within wiki or wiki books (John Broghton's guide is good). This means to me that we should not write an article that is too indepth, when existing website information can be used to answer more questions in depth.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

mrsh, We particularily like #4. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't trust you horseracer. Simple as that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

osm20 - I would read mrsh's suggestion #4 again. Referencing existing website information will bring us right back to square one as soon as she drops the published literature bomb again. Although I beleive that all three of us (mrsh, osm20, and myself) might disagree with Inu's domestic tag placed on the NGSD, he spent much time and effort putting together a diverse and more complete NGSD page with referenced info from many different and neutral sources. Let's roll with his version and work to find better taxon references/opinions for his version. Tomcue2 (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Again Cue, wiki rules and standard processes require verifiable sources. Ive asked for independent editor assessment of our situation. Stay Tuned.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wiki lesson but from your very arrival back in mid January you have been removing other peoples contributions (even to the original article) without asking for citations, references, or even giving warnings. You just remove information at your leisure based upon your opinion. Did you ever stop to think that (as a Conservation Society board member), your opinion might be biased? Tomcue2 (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me say something. I didn't "tag" the Singer as a domestic dog, others did that as you Tom should know from the source I sent you (that's one of four sources who placed it as a domestic dog). And since we are using MSOW3 as the source for the classification, you can't say something different in the entry. Furthermore it isn't as if I like all the stuff from Matznick (to many nitpicking and obviously biased and premature) but for the articles sake I mentioned it to inform people to the best of my possibilities. It was hard to read much of that.. stuff, but I jumped over my own shadow. This is what writing articles in wikipedia is about. You can't just write what you like.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So can we conclude that ya'll disagree with my suggestion and want me to begin editing the new data?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

From my point I would say back off. You've done enough already---Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

From the point of view of my agenda, I would only ask that while you are working on this article, you also keep an eye on the articles that it links to/surround it zoologically, and make sure they all jive as much as possible. That's basically all I care about. Like right now, is this article in accord with dingo for example? Chrisrus (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrisus, Your meaning here is unclear. it sounds as though you're saying that, "as long as the article information is consistent, that's all I care about" Ok, then if that's the case you're saying the article is ok as long as it agrees with other related articles no matter whether the information contained within them is accurate or not???? So, "it's Ok to make a green ball to instruct in the useage of the word 'stop' so long as all the courses taught to 'everyone' uses the same green color even though perhaps a better choice might have been red?" Please tell me I'm wrong in my understanding of your statement. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is what he means, however, considered e.g. that he wrote "Australian lupus dingo" in the dingo-article and claimed that this was consistent with MSW3... Actually I have given up making sense of his actions.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Out With the Old. In With the New.

Tomcue. Fine by me. Let's muck out the stable. Historically speaking we should expect a calvary charge. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

osm20 . Obviously Inu thinks the new page with more complete info is the better way to go because he posted it. Well let me re-think that and await Inu actually stating as much so that I have a cited reference as to his preference. Now you agree along with myself. Does this constitute a consensus? Tomcue2 (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

tomcue, I don't have many good answers, but the old military style of using calvary to charge armored tanks went by the wayside many years ago. We can only hope that compromise will be a better choice. My wife and I will throw in reinforcements as needed. It has taken a while, but it appears that the ghost rider who led the charge to devastation has been unhorsed. Maybe we can move on and continue this campaign in a diplomatic manner which hopefully may end in a peaceful settlement. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the new article is better because it doesn't write things without a source and because it has an actual structure. Since horseracer undid everything again, well I had made a copy just for that so I don't need to worry. As for you two, for wikipedia it doesn't matter even if you had hundred of years of experience. For all we other wikipedians know you too could just as well be lying or have research but be biased. Therefore there need to be sources. You can't just add something because you think that is right. And just because you Osm20 disagree that the Singer is a feral dog doesn't mean that this is the truth. But let's stay with the topic of this section: 1. How do you two actually want to proceed. 2. What is meant with "consensus"?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave the two articles where they currently reside and work on Mr. bargho's version at his user page. can discuss there as well. This article reads well to most people so it could stay on for reader's while the other version is being rewritten. The accepted definition for "consensus" works for us. Basically consensus is thought of as theoretical or positional agreement as a group. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We can work on my page sure. But give me some time, I have just found a few new sources and I know one of them has something for the article. Further Tom send me tons of pictures, I have already choosen a few for commons and some of them I wanted to use for the article from the start, I just couldn't do it legally. One is the Singer on flickr that hwols into a microphon. When I asked for consensus I ment consensus of facts, what the majority of the sources say and of course the most reliable ones. I'm not going along if the article will just be a consensus of opinions.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which NGSD Page to Tweak

Below is the admin complaint, some admin advice, and a comment from me. I have reverted the page to Inugami's more complete form. It will be far easier to tweak the larger page then to try and have Inugami have to rebuild and reference all of the added information. If mrhorseracer were to take a long look, most of the information from the original page is still there. Inu was able to add a ton of referenced info from sources other then the organization that you represent. I am certain that none of us will agree on all points on the page but our opinions are based on the information that has been fed to us. Tomcue2 (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Proper Method to update article when lack of consensus

Over at the New Guinea Singing Dog article, several editors rewrote the article from scratch and complete redid it in one massive change. I reverted and have proposed a Path Forward that will allow all editors time to construct a quality article (most of the editor are newbees, including me. We have differences of opinions on what the content should be. I don't want a war to break out. My question is, what is the proper way to go about this. Might be helpful to have more experienced editors add comments at the Singing Dog article page so we all see.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You (and the other editors) should not be just pasting your preferred version of the article over the changes that other editors are making. This is not the way to build consensus, or to build an article. You have made 35 edits to the article, and many of them are reversions of other people's work, or reverting back to your preferred version of the article. Today, for instance. You have removed an enormous amount of material from the article, maybe 75% of the content. Why? Surely it is worth keeping? Diannaa TALK 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for taking the time to comment. Fyi, Wiki user Inugami-bargho took the original NGSD page, placed it on his own page and made it his project. He did the same for the Dingo page. All indications are that Inugami has used cited and referenced information and his knowledge and experience of both wiki and of primitive canid's warrants some respect. Most if not all of the information from the page in it's original form is still there. The added information reflects a more NPOV. I and others involved agree that taking the more complete version and tweaking it would be a much easier process at this point. I will return the article to it's more complete form. Tomcue2 (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of NGSD

FA(Fellow editors), I think in order to write about NGSD, we have to first understand them. The first step in understanding them is to decide on the location of their origin??? Logical answer:_________(Please fill in the blank) OSM20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

FA, Then here is another question concerning origin. Considering the NGSD as NGSD are known to us today, in other words, considering the NGSD we can see, feel, smell, and hear this day today, right here, right now. Where did these animals originate? We cannot even discuss the wild population as there is no certainty at all that they even currently exist whether in a "pure" or "hybrid" form. We can only trace the origin of those specimens we can actually see, feel, hear and smell and those specimens would be the animals cloistered within the "captive population." These things said, What is their location of origin?_________________________________________osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In the words of MacIntosh, 1975, "Although the dingo is said to be regularly captured & tamed......."

So with these things in mind, I'm going to wait on you guys' input for 24 hours or so and then if you don't say anything, I'm going to do some minor editing. A person can't discuss unless there's someone to discuss with. As hyped up as this article has been, we think we should move forward on it and not just sit on our hands. I'm aging more every day! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I originally assumed that this was not controversial, that they must have gotten to New Guinea as domesticated animals we picked up in southwest or south central Asia on the way from Africa, and most directly from southeast Asia. Then some went feral (so early on, they probably hadn't gotten as far away from the original wild state as modern dogs anyway), and then, over the years slowly evolved back into wild animals. I had been assuming the same thing about the Australian version.

Now I have learned that there are some theories they they the story could have gone differently, but it sounds a bit far fetched to me. What, could they have swum there on their own? Floated there on some vegetation?

One of you said that they might have been brought not as a hunting dog but rather as a food animal, like the New Guinea variety of pig. People do eat dogs in that part of the world. I figure that was part of it, but I try to keep up with theories on the origin of the dogs, but none of them as I remember mentioned anything about dogmeat being a significant part of the domestication.

But what do I know? You're the expert. What do you think? What do the sources say? Chrisrus (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I think we're dealing with an inexact science. No one really knows what happened thousands of years ago, but there really are some good theories published and available if someone wants to prove a point. My concern is how this article will affect the thousands of readers' perceptions of the NGSD. We're down to 200 +- so things could get ugly. It's really quite heartbreaking what has been allowed to happen to these animals. Everyone editing this article needs to spend a few years with Singers and then come back and write the article. It would look totally different. Just curious Chris, have you ever seen a dog use a tool? For example, have you ever seen a dog drag a box over to a fence and then jump up on the box and then over the fence? Have you ever seen a dog that actually sympathized with you when you bumped your head? I mean really understood what had taken place? Have you ever driven along a road and looked at your buildings from the road and realized that of all the dogs by the buildings only the Singing Dogs were watching your every move? This is what we're dealing with here. These are not your normal Irish Setters or Miniature Dachshunds. These dogs are about three rungs up the ladder, but sadly, only a handful of people in the world are witnesses to it and only a few of them are published so accurate/factual sources are in short supply. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I didn't see was the head-bumping. The rest I did see. As far as your worries, just point out the features of the Singer and you will find plenty of people who want to "save" it. They are doing that with dogs all the time. And with what sport of dogs do you actually compare the Singers, it sounds as though you mean Show dogs.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B., Please be careful when you translate. It is head tossing, not head bumping. I have also read your comments regarding matznick's reference to the "head-toss". As much as I disagree with her about numerous issues, we agree that the head-toss is a feature unique to NGSD and is neat to watch too. As to your saying, "the only thing I didn't see......the rest I did see." I haven't a clue what you mean. To what statement are you responding? Please be definitive. As to pointing out features, which I assume you mean unique characteristics, then are you saying it is someone elses job to point them out to potential conservators but that it is not your responsibility or the responsibility of this article? I really think there is something being lost here in the translation. You must have misunderstood me somwhere along the line regarding "sport of dogs". Please clarify. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Mr. B., Then are you saying you have spent some time observing Singing Dogs? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"...have you ever seen a dog use a tool? For example, have you ever seen a dog drag a box over to a fence and then jump up on the box and then over the fence? Have you ever seen a dog that actually sympathized with you when you bumped your head?" That's what I saw and also other dogs that watched my every move. The last Singer I saw made short contact with me and didn't bother with me any further, nothing unusual for dogs. I simply didn't see any head-bumping. I meant "sort of dogs", sorry, typo. "...then are you saying it is someone elses job to point them out to potential conservators but that it is not your responsibility or the responsibility of this article." Correct, a wikipedia article is no advertisement board, it gives information, it doesn't say whether any being is worthy of conservation only that some people consider them so and others not if such information is available. In this case it provides information on Singers and makes no advertisement for them. And as for "just point out the features of the Singer and you will find plenty of people who want to "save" it. They are doing that with dogs all the time." What's not to understood here, in dog-breeding all sorts of dog-lines have their enthusiasts who want to "save" them. You have a conservation society or not? Advertise it from their, find people who are interested and find out whether they would be reliable breeeders. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B, Please stop using the term "head bumping" Singers do not "head bump". They "head toss." "head tossing" is behavior unique to NGSD as described by janice koler matznick. I'm not asking wiki to "advertise" NGSD. Just present verifiable facts and we'll do just fine. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You said something about head bumping: "Have you ever seen a dog that actually sympathized with you when you bumped your head". Ok, I take that on me, I confused something. And actually yeah I have seen dogs sympathizing with you. Furthermore I advise you to be also critical of your own experience. They describe the Singers you met but do actually think that you can be certain that this was true for their wild ancestors? Think of it: why a head-toss as a "call" for attention, why not a sound? Like the artcile states, it is difficult to say what is a quirk and what not because the "original state" is unknown. Oh and something else, don't use NGSD in the article. If New Guinea Singing Dog is to long for you, use "Singer" but not NGSD, even some more experienced characters might not understand that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B., I see where you're coming from on the "head toss". In the article it should be specified that the researcher specifies she only worked with and observed the "head toss" in captive Singers and it is unknown whether or not this behavior exists in wild Singers. Wait, seems like she did specify that in her article. Will need to check on it. Regarding the use of the acronym NGSD for Singing Dogs, it is only your own lack of knowledge and experience with Singing Dogs which causes you to not recognize NGSD. NGSD is widely used, accepted, and well known. We will continue to pen it. The fact that you don't admit it as a name in the first paragraph along with "Singing Dog" is your error, not ours. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Refence #6

Hi Inu, Could you help us find reference #6 and we can't read German either. Thanks very much, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't sent you the book, it has neraly 500 pages, but it was this book.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B. ,Etiquette demands that you provide references that are accessible to the person(s) reviewing your research. Referencing a book written in a foreign language and referencing it as a "book for sale" is not proper. You don't want to place yourself in a position of being accused of hiding or manufacturing, or misquoting sources. Thanks again, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not reference it as a "book for sale". You wanted to know the source and I showed you how it looked like. What am I supposed to do now? According to what you said any book source would be illegtimate when the reviewers cannot get the book.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, I repeat to you that the link you provided is a link to this book for sale by amazon. There are six available at a price of $65.05 each. Now if that isn't a book for sale, I don't know what is! You did not address the question re it being written in German. What you are offering here is what we'd call a hidden or covert reference. A hidden reference is one that is not accessible. This book is a hidden reference in that it is difficult to obtain and once obtained, it is in a language other than English and thus has to be translated. Once it is translated in a literal form, the meaning must be translated. This would be a fine reference in Germany where it was published, but in the U.S. where this article is being written , this reference has minimal use or meaning. It would not score very high on a list rating reference value or verifiability. Your statement of, "According to what you said any book source would be illegitimate when the reviewers cannot get the book." is a correct statement. What value is such a reference? How do we know that what you say in the article has been correctly translated, quoted and/or interpreted? Your references need to be accessible and relevant or they will be discounted in the least or deleted at the extreme. One of your obligations as a writer of non-fiction is to provide quality references. The use of this reference is hampered by being written in a foreign language and inaccessibility. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, Why don't you enter in your bibliography the page number(s) that you used and then also provide a translated copy of that/those pages?? If you were to satisfy these criteria, most of the questions regarding verifiability would be overcome. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure I can do that. But let me tell you one thing: at least I give sources for the statements I wrote. Youd don't, so stop acting like that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B., The reason I'm so picky about the need to present your references in an English translation is because we have already discovered a difference in understanding between English and German when we were discussing domestic and domesticated dogs. Also, considering that historically as well as presently there are far more Singers in the U.S. than anywhere else on earth, it would only be courteous to present information in English. Logically speaking there is a higher volume of interest as well as readers in the U.S. Then too since there are currently and have been more NGSD in the U.S. than anywhere else, Germany included, the German researchers will have been only able to draw information from a very small sample. Besides, as a reader, I'd like for wiki to at least provide a translation in English so i can fully appreciate the article. Please be specific when you give orders and belittle me. There is a difference between constructive criticism and character assassination. Please be aware of those differences before you give me orders and make small of my contributions. BTW you have still not answered my question regarding your own hands on knowledge about these animals. There is nothing wrong with not having experience in some areas. None of us have experience in all areas. It is wrong, however to hide behind a phony name and self edit as we have seen happen here(Not you). There are many aspects of writing this wiki article that exceed my capabilities. I am learning my wiki limitations but none-the-less have a desire to contribute what I am able to contribute. Please do not steal that good feeling of self worth from me by making small of my contributions. I have been asked by one editor to "back off" from you because you might leave the project. You have a lot invested in this project so it would not be logical for you to dump it and allow it to go back into others' hands. I'm being the devil's advocate with you as I would with anyone else simply to make the article as good quality as possible. There is nothing personal here what-so-ever. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But the german population has been monitored more closely than the American one concerning breeding and started with a less inbred population. Did you know about the problems some mothers have with their pups? About the barking? The problem of saying what is normal and what is a quirk? And if, which of the english sources stated this? As for me leaving, after a while even the hardiest folk give up (Chrisrus already managed that somewhere else with others), but I am not there yet. As for my experience, I'm not a researcher of Singers. I found the majority of my infos while working on the dingo article (I wanted to improve the german article which was shorter then the one on Batman Begins and I thought that this wasn't right) and I was lucky because one of the icons in dog-research over here works with them too. I am also about making the article as good as possible and regard it as a plus that I am not a fan or breeder (a co-author in the german wikipedia asked me to update the article there). And actually during all these researches I have come across many people who mean well but who did more damage than good due to their passion and stubborness and these people where practically always "fans" and breeders and often showed the typical signs of denialism. So I fought and I will do it again. Til now there has been no problem with you, you simply seem to lack information but as you noticed some people here are not open for information that contradicts there views and after a while you get tired of that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, I'm not going to argue with you or counter your insults. I would really like to blast you, but will restrain myself rather than stoop to your level. It is apparent you are being defensive and lashing out. That posture is nonproductive so I will "back off" and let you regain your composure and we will engage each other at a later time. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Mr.B, I just have to ask you one question. Why in the world would you think productive dialogue could result from an editor bragging about how so much better wikipedia is run in their home country, and hurling insults at American editors, American animals, American breeders and American researchers. We know without a glimmer of a doubt that you haven't a clue as to what has gone on in this country regarding Singing Dogs. If you feel so strongly that Americans are so bloody inferior, why don't you simply leave us to our own devices. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So now I am insulting you? Did you really expect that I would just approve of the way you edited the article? Detailed infos about the various taxonomic classifications of the Singers have nothing to do in the entry. And what were your sources for the other statements? You even destroyed a reference link. You said yourself that you have not much experience with riding articles and nonetheless you write in such a way. Why?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B, I don't edit with your "approval" in mind. You do not own the exclusive edit rights to this article. The wholesale slaughter of my efforts confirms to us that you exhibit the same behavioral deficiencies as mrhorseracer, namely some silly idea that your work is superior to other editors. This slash and dictate method didn't work for mrhorseracer and it won't work for you. Either compromise or leave. Several of us want to construct an unbiased factual article. You are interrupting this construct. Please move on to another article where your dictatorial behavior is acceptable. There are people available who possess command of the English language, subject matter knowledge, and a positive "team effort" attitude who are more than capable of producing a quality NGSD article. We admire your research and wiki rule knowledge and abilities, but those attributes are overshadowed by your lack of cooperation, nonacceptance of others' ideas and transparent lack of subject matter knowledge. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph #1

Mr. Bargho, Please cite your reference(s) and rationale for stating canis lupus hallstromi is a domestic dog. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The one above says so, also Reference # 1 said that DNA-analyses assigned it to the domestic dog, in # 5 it is assigned under C.l. dingo and that one classified as a domestic dog, # 8 does so (although you might wanna ignore that one, I would replace it if I had the original papers [I don't like using newspaper articles]), # 9 did so, # 11 also does it. And according to # 12 it's mtDNA-type fell into the main Clade of domestic dog mtDNA types.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, I'm sorry, but whenever I've used references, I've cited the page numbers so the information is readily accessible. I thought that was what was expected and required of an author. Could you go through your bibliography and make those corrections, please? Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I still have problems with the english templates, do you have experience? If yes I can give you the page numbers.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, I do not feel comfortable in correcting your bibliographic information. You will need to make those corrections yourself and besides, if you were able to figure out the templates well enough to enter all that you have entered, we would think it would not be too difficult to figure out how to enter page numbers. Please clarify your own entries. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, look below for clarification.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph

Fellow Editors, The second paragraph reads "Everyone of these dogs......"There is absolutely no evidence of any kind whatsoever anywhere that indicates the remaining wild population is hybridized or in fact even exists. Therefore I'm editing those sentences. If any of you have issues with my edit, please just revert it as I'm not trying to be ornery here. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fellow Editors, After I changed the article's second paragraph I realized the information I wrote was not something that could be sourced. Is there any way for an editor to write down suggestions so other editors can read and edit it prior to saving it?? osma20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FE, How does a person write up on wikipedia the fact that there is no verified information on the current population size(either wild or captive), that there is no current verified information regarding purity that can be made public information, and that there is no current verifiable information regarding distribution. There is nothing published to support any claim of any kind except to say that the information is not available at this time. Leave the sections blank?? What to do? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If she has no peer-reviewed source for such a statement, she doesn't write it. Furthermore, what is the source for such a statement as you wrote concerning the population and breeders? And if you have one such a sentence would be better below in the section about the captive population in the entry it would be sufficient to say that the captive population is small and that there is no verified evidence for remaining Singers in the wild.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And if the wild population isn't mixed with other dogs, where did they go?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B, I agreed with you regarding verified sources as I stated in a paragraph above this one. I rewrote ans saved the only types of statements that could be used considering the lack of sources. I could not say that the population was small as the word "small" a subjective word indicating knowledge. Additionally the word small says essentially nothing. There are NGSD in private hands in the United States because NGSD seem to keep "turning up" with new information coming in every once in a while, so it's quite impossible to have a true idea re the captive population anyway. Then, of course when we have new NGSDs surface, there is first of all the question of purity that mustt be addressed. So since every statement has to sourced and wiki won't even accept organizational newsletters as sources, the truth cannot be told. Very interesting concept. As to what happened to the Singers in the wild?? You tell me. There's been no field research in N.G., so any statement along those lines is pure theory. Perhaps they died of disease, drowned in a big flood, ate a bad apple which made all the males sterile, were absorbed into the Village Dog population or were pushed farther and farther away by encroaching humman population so that the remaining NGSD only reside in remote mountain areas. There was probably a time when NGSD distribution took in the whole of N.G. Some of us believe that at one time there were two distinct Singer races. One landrace was Lowland Singers who were longer legged and thinner bodied. They were sprinters who could run fast. They are represented in the longer legged thinner bodied captive population that exists today. There were also the Lowland Singers who had shorter legs and thicker bodies. They were better adapted to mountainous terrain. As far as we know, there are only a specimens of this build in existence today but that information is not admissable in the article. osm2oOldsingerman20 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Tomcue, You could add the map link showing world distribution of captive NGSD if the map meets wiki standards. If it doesn't meet wiki standards then nothing can be said about world NGSD distribution since there is no published article about it. At least this is the way I understand the rules. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You question my sources, but again, what are yours? How do you no anything about Lowland Singers? And I rewrote the second paragraph (your wording was terrible) and I entered page numbers where the sources where to big. The only exception was "An updated description of the New Guinea Singing Dog". I used that so often, the info is spred all over the source and the article, sorry naming the pages there would be useless.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Following through on requests

Mr.B., 2nd request for page numbers in your reference list. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Mr.B., 2nd request for German-English Translation of German references used. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Mr.B., 1st request for removal of poor quality photos. The photo of the old black and tan male NGSD taken in Germany is horrible. Surely since you Germans have conducted such extensive research you have better photographs than this one. The subject is not the problem. The photographer's skills are obviously wanting. Since you're a German you should be able to procure better quality photos that don't present the animal in a negative manner. A second photo of poor descriptive quality is the very first one in the article. The photo you used is of an older dog. There is nothing wrong with using photos of old dogs, but in this case, the tail is held down and viewers can't see the white tip on its tail. White tipped tails are a major characteristic of NGSD and should be shown. The 3rd photo that needs to be replaced is the one taken at the San Diego Zoo (BTW Sand Diego is not correct spelling as used in the article). There are many, many quality photos of the San Diego Zoo Singing Dogs. Both of the dogs housed there are good natured, not confrontational as your photo suggests. In fact, NGSD are never,have never, not even once, been known to confront humans and will only defend themselves when cornered and there is no visible escape. Why show readers a photo which suggests that these dogs are aggressive or mean?? I'm trying to look at this article as a reader would look at it. These are my first impressions of the photos. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I already did add page numbers. WHat use is the page number if the source is just 4 pages long or when practically the whole source is spread all over ther article? And what sort of translation of the german sources would actually stand as reliable for you? Didn't you complain about the language barrier, how would that be different? What shall I do? Go to the Zoo, climb into the enclosure and take pictures of the dog? I could get in trouble with the zoo staff for that. By the way which of the photos show the dogs as confrontational? What signs of aggression are there? Tom and me are already working on new photos. By the way, aren't you a breeder? Why don't you make some photos?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B. Sorry, We just can't find your page numbers. I was especially interested in Laurie Corbitts Canid. The page numbers just don't show up on my computer in your reference list or in your text. I must be overlooking them. That's quite a yarn you spun regarding the German-English translation. I know you'll never let us see it but that's OK. We will simply disregard your source. I think you can find the San Diego Zoo picture about which I'm referring all by yourself without any further help from me. To answer your question about my Wife and I providing you with pictures, we have 26 photos in the photo section of the New Guinea Singing Dog International website. They are of our NGSD and represent a fair share of the New Guinea Singing Dog Foundation Stock for North America. I will explain the significance of Foundation Stock to you some other time. We do applaud you for a fine array of photos. Pictures are great communicators if carefully chosen! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have pictures then upload them. And one thing: YOU DARE TO COMPLAIN THAT YOU CAN'T FIND THE PAGE NUMBERS? According to this history-version of the article you deleted them!!! Fine I can translate the source if you threaten me. But still I don't get what difference that should make.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B. You're still not understanding what I said about page numbers. Page numbers should be in your reference list. How else can I say it? We have not touched your reference list. You have never entered the page numbers in your list of references. A person should be able to go to your reference list and see the pages you used. If you provide a translated copy of your foreign references that would be splendid. Providing translated references will allow editors other than yourself the opportunity to clarify and verify. We know there are language issues as written in the section under Physical description. Just for an example of incorrect useage, you use the word "spots" when describing the coats of newborns. The author whom you referenced used the word "flecks". In the English language, there is a significant difference between "spots" and "flecks". When I read your word "spots" I immediately thought of Dalmatians. Dalmations have "spots". Flecks are technically tiny, tiny spots, but to say a newborn Singer has "spots" is incorrect.. Newborn Singers are not spotted. Their haircoat has "flecks". You used the wrong word. Why didn't you simply use matznick's word "flecks"? Little words make a big difference in meaning. You say "At age 7 years the black snouts turn gray." Matznick says, " By 7 years the black muzzle turns gray." With your version it reads that their snouts turn gray instantly the day they turn 7 years of age. Matznick's version tells us that their muzzles gradually turn gray starting before 7 years of age. Additionally, your use of the word "snouts" is incorrect. Pigs or hogs have "snouts". Dogs have "muzzles". This all may sound picky to you, but when one adds up all these minor errors one ends up with some major misunderstandings. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's it, I'm done with you I wont do anything you suggest anymore. You claim not to have touched the references but the article history says otherwise. You make a huge deal about certain topics and claim to know what the average reader will think. How many have you actually asked? Well I asked quite a few and none of them had any problems with the article or the text. You either don't know what you are doing or you knowledgeably vandalize.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu, Fine. Be done with me, but don't complain when your work is considered dumb just because you misinterpreted things. You should thank me for being kind to you and helping to clean up your edits. . Instead of harping on what I did to your reference, why don't you simply edit back in the reference that you used. I did not take away from your content. I sued the same reference you used. All I did was interpret it correctly because I have a better understanding of the English language than you have. There is nothing bad about that. I can't speak any other language at all. Why do you get so upset when someone corrects the littlest part of your work. You cannot be educated or can't have obtained a higher degree because you would have learned a tiny bit of humility. Be a little humble! Chill out! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Inu, Almost forgot. You threatened me saying you won't do anything I suggest anymore. I don't consider that a big loss as you haven't done anything I've suggested to date anyway. And BTW the word you need is "knowingly" vandalize, not "knowledgeably" vandalize. Actually, I don't do either.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Differences In Meanings of Terms

Mr.B. Terms such as "breed", "breed of dog", "domestic dog", have different meanings when used by the general public as compared to when used by the scientific world. If you plan to use these terms, you will need to define them. Correct English language useage is a problem in your writing so we suggest you provide "a glossary of terms". In the "Glossary of Terms" you can define words you use that have multiple meanings or interpretations. It would also serve to clarify language deficiencies. In your very first opening sentence(which is actually two sentences run together)you use the term "domestic dog". Clicking on the term "domestic dog" simply brings up a reference to Mammal Species of the World 3rd Ed. that is meaningless to the "common Joe reader". After reading the information the reader goes back to the article knowing no more than they did a moment ago. In fact, they probably now think the NGSD is the same as a Boxer, Great Dane, or Shih Tzu since there is no clarification such as the use of the words "modern" or "ancient". I would think a dog that has survived for several thousand years deserves clarification. When readers see the words "domestic dog" they think of the modern dogs, not ancient ones. When you use confusing terms or words that have multiple meaning you need to reference them to a "Glossary Of Terms". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

At first: the little article you mentioned was Chrisrus Idea not mine. Second: have some patience, I already found a new source on dog genetics that includes Singers and adresses this. Third: did it occur to you that the article on domestic dog is simply bad? A glossary of terms is good for a book but not for one of these articles here, every good wikipedian would tell you the same. Fourth: Maybe I would find time to adress this topic if you would just stop with this for some time.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B. I think you misunderstood me. What little article are we discussing? I can surely agree that a full blown glossary would be out of place, but I would think it would be better to make a stab at explaining a handful of terms rather than leaving the reader confused or even misinformed. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Then edit the articles about these terms. Edit dog breed, edit domestic dog, edit domestication and so on. But I can guarantee you one thing if you do with those articles the same what you did with this one, you wont get many friends.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B, We really don't understand what you're saying here. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand....

The New Guinea Singing dog is a variety of Domestic dog of the subspecies Canis lupus dingo.

Although, like familiar common dogs, ’’Canis lupus familiaris’’, they are descended from domesticated wolves , they, like the Australian Dingo, so long ago went feral that have reverted to a wild state.

Separation from other bloodlines and pressure to adapt to life in the highlands of New Guinea resulted in a unique set of physical characteristics and behaviors that distinguish them from all other dogs.

Although several captive populations exist in various locations around the world, this genetic isolation may have ended in their home range; interbreeding with feral dogs may have already resulted in the disappearance of New Guinea Singing Dogs in the wild. (Chrisrus)

Based upon the information I have studied and read, your comments are pretty accurate. Two things to add however. 1) Because the island of New Guinea is still so sparsely populated and the NGSD has tended to stay away from human contact, the possibility exists that wild purebred NGSD's may still live in the PNG highlands. 2) The 2010 dna results by Alan Wilton and Peter Savolanien have concluded that the Singer & Australian Dingo's dna are virtually the same. This leads to the theory that the two dogs may have at one time actually looked the same but that the end of the ice age (which seperated New Guinea & Australia)by the Coral Sea left them isolated from each other in very different environments. This could then explain the minor physical differences between the Dingo and the NGSD. Tomcue2 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

While 1) might be an important elaboration suitable for something other than a brief summary, I don't see that it contradicts or corrects the statement "...may have ended" and "...may have resulted". Wheneveer one says "may" one implies "or may not".

2) on the other hand, seems to support the statement "of the subspecies Canis lupus dingo, because if their DNA were not virtually the same, the NGSD and the Australian Dingo wouldn't be Canis lupus dingo".

Your third unumbered statement seems to support my "Separation....all other dogs." Chrisrus (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Where are those DNA results published? Furthermore I recommend not to use "familiar common" for dogs since this is a valuation and has nothing to do here, simply link c.l. familiaris. Furthermore since all the studied Singers are descended from captive individuals and the majority came from the Eipo tribe the "wild state" is debatable until wild Singers have been caught and studied. And neither it is sure whether they developed all of their characteristics in New Guinea.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are so funny. You think you can decide something that world class scientists argue over. Trust me, you're spinning your wheels with all this taxon stuff. If you words like "may" you're being subjective. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Chrisrus, As I've said before, there is no way anyone can reach back in time and determine with any certainty that either NGSD or AU Dingoes were feral. Anyone who states these dogs were domesticated and then went feral is simply writing a good fictional story. I do not understand why you all persist to trying to write controversial fantasy. Inu, A link to a news article of the 2010 DNA study is in the links section. The main article hasn't nbeen published to date as far as we know. All this is available are about 90 newspaper articles. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Chrisrus, We really like your paragraph after "Separation" with the exception of the bit about the highlands. There is no proof that NGSD have been limited to just the highlands. They may have roamed all over as I've mentioned before, but everyone seems determined to limit them to the highlands so that's OK. The first sentence is improper. The first sentence should read, "The New Guinea Singing Dog aka Singing Dog or Singer is a rare, ancient breed or race of canine which as developed simultaneously but separated from its close relative the Australian Dingo." osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Digression

Inu - please keep in mind that we are in the discussion page and not the article itself. If you feel the need to ask for references in the discussion page it seems a huge waste of space. Just so you know where I am coming from at this point, I saw your post to a fellow wiki editor "Mariomassone" where you labeled me as a breeder. I am not a breeder and do not appreciate being labeled as one so that you can discredit my input. I am the co-founder of an organization trying to conserve the NGSD. That is far more than just a breeder. Regarding my information I provide here, you should probably know that at some time in the near future I will be laying out $25,000 of my own American hard earned cash to fund an expedition to the PNG highlands in search of new NGSD bloodlines. Before I made the decision to do this I needed to be confident of two things. 1) That non hybridized NGSD's still exist in the Highlands of PNG & 2) That if captured, someone can dna test what we catch and be able to determine that it's a pure NGSD or a hybrid. Alan wilton himself told us that the dna markers of Dingo's and Singers are unique enough that he can differentiate them from being pure or hybrid. He stated that he could only tell us if a Au Dingo or singer have been hybridized with another dog breed. He further stated that the only mix he could not be certain of was a AU Dingo crossed with a Singer. That sounds like pretty strong evidence that the dna of the two dingo's are the same. Don't know if it's referenced somewhere and really don't care if it hits the article. If you want to be on the cutting edge feel free to place it on the page. I doubt anyone will challenge it. It's important to me however and someday it will be in print somewhere for you to use. Tomcue2 (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there rational reason to expect that there are still pure wild NGSDs in their home range? Chrisrus (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. The island has areas that are so remote (void of human population) and so difficult to traverse, there is a strong possibility that pure bred Singers still thrive there. The problem is getting to them to capture one. The terrain is extremely difficult to explore. Helecopters are needed to get an explorer to these remote areas. Tomcue2 (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Who might publish your findings? Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that we successfully capture a pure Singer, there is no doubt that it will be published somewhere. We will attempt to get photo and video footage and will likely seek some assistance from Conservation International who is already on the island and studying the birds of paradise in the highlands.Tomcue2 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Tomcue, Please allow me to add a bit here. What Dr. Wilton told me was that Au Dingo and NGSD markers differ significantly from those found in domestic breeds of dogs. Plain and simple. AU Dingo and NGSD are almost identical with one another and they are unique from domestic dogs. As tomcue says, Dr. Wilton said the differences between Au Dingoes and Singers compared to domestic dogs is very apparent. With this new study completed, it is so easy to prove that NGSD are not to be considered a domestic dog. There were no ifs, ands, or buts about it and I'm sorry Inu there's no way we're going to entertain ideas to the contrary. For you to try to elevate yourself above Dr. Wilton and 30 some other researchers from several prestigious universities is rather a joke. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So Wilton told you? Strange a few months back he told be that the dingo is an ancient breed. And if it is as you say, why doesn't it stand in the study "Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication", if that is the one you are referring too?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

inu, Yes, as a matter of fact he did. Why do you find that so hard to believe? Do you always go out of your way to insult people and call them liars? We can certainly go along with the idea that the NGSD and AU Dingo are ancient breeds of canine because in the correct context, the word "breed" is not used with the words, "domestic dog". Dr. Wilton's team is very specific when they say there are significant differences between the DNA of AU Dingoes/NGSD and the DNA of domestic dogs. Used properly, the word "breed" stands for "a group whose members are alike or the same". "Race is a synonym for "breed". So a person could say: "New Guinea Singing Dogs aka Singing Dogs or Singers" are a rare ancient breed or race of canine. NGSD have lived on the island of New Guinea for thousands of years. According to a 2010 DNA study by Dr. Alan Wilton etal, the Australian Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dogs are closely related."(cite Wilton reference here) Inu, Now how will you find fault with this one? What are your feelings here tomcue and chrisrus? Oh and BTW belittling breeders simply shows ignorance and arrogance. It's so funny that some of you think you're on a level above a "breeder". You wouldn't have a job, anything to occupy your time, or any dogs to argue over if it weren't for us "breeders". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu - So what did you take it to mean when Wilton told you that the dingo was an ancient breed? You don't need dna to figure that out. Simply looking at the physical characteristics can bring one to that conclusion. You did once mention that you believed that the domestic dog evolved from wolf, did you not? Maybe you should go back and ask Wilton directly if he can differenciate between a canis lupis familiarus and a canis lupus dingo via DNA? We obviously had a reason to ask this question where the subject might not be as important to the Wiki page or to his findings. Quit doubting everything we are telling you about the NGSD. Either find the stones to use it or keep it out of the page. It matters not to me and I do not plan on editing the page myself. We have nothing to gain by providing you this information other than to educate folks. Tomcue2 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)