Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Shiloh Shepherd dog article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9

Pictures

I fully resent the picture that is being published in the history section!!

1. This dog is NOT a good representative of the breed!! His legs are WAY too short for what we want to see in a real Shiloh ... Just go to our homepage & take a look at the pic of Laz .. then compare!!! http://shilohshepherd.com/

If that is not enough .. go to http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMap2005HistoryShilohShepherd.htm Look at Shiloh's Easy rider (Shane) he is in every Shiloh born today!! This is the most prominent foundation dog in our genepool ... if you want HISTORY ... then this is the dog who's picture should be there ... not a faulty dog that represents a "non" ISSR breeding!!

That dog actually represents a Low stationed (Alsatian) FAULTY type http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohShepherdIllustratedBreedStandardDonorsFinal.htm

2. At this moment you have a pet quality ISSR Shiloh (that has never been bred, but is a good representative of the breed) pictured along with 2 NONE ISSR dogs that will never show up in the database, once the breed IS recognized!!

Why not upload this picture to wikipedia with an acceptible license, and it could be used on the page? - Trysha ^(talk) 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we please drop the "only ISSR Shilohs are Shilohs" bull? My Rottie has a roach back -- are you going to tell me she's not a Rottie? She might not agree ;) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a gross misrepresentation of our dogs & an injustice to the entire breed! MaShiloh 18:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And you certainly had the room to add other representatives, however, I see no reason the top ranked Shiloh, judged by your breed standard which you allow ARBA to use should be considered a "gross misrepresentation". .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

69.139.220.205 I would like to add my disapproval of the picture that is being published in the proposed "history" section. This does not look like the real Shiloh Shepherds. There are so many good and accurate pictures available of real Shiloh Shepherds that you may use to show a true representation of the Shiloh Shepherds. I can't understand why you have selected the particular picture you are showing there now. Please reconsider and contact Tina Barber, the documented founder and the legitimate guiding developer for good, true and accurate pictures of SHILOH SHEPHERDS. 69.139.220.205Nancy Tisci, ISSR TiAmo Desert Mountain Shiloh Shepherds in AZ.

I'm sorry, but Tina isn't the only one who can put pictures in the article, Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Nancy is objecting to someone else posting a picture of a Shiloh Shepherd. She is objecting to the use of a picture that is a poor representation of a Shiloh.

Carmen

I also see this as a very BAD dog to represent the breed standard. Please remove it. 67.186.153.43 16:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

I asked Karen to put a few pics of "old line" Shilohs on a page for me http://www.shilohshepherds.info/oldLineShilohs.htm These dogs are good representatives of this breed ... and NOT BEING USED AT STUD!!!! For those woried about POV etc... why not put up pictures of dogs that are NOT producing puppies in ANY registry, but DO show up in the pedigrees of NEARLY EVERY SHILOH EVER BORN? MaShiloh 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a dog is used as stud has absolutely nothing to do with their picture; please try to focus on the article content. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The top ranked ARBA dog, son of two ISSR stars is a bad representative? *shakes head* Get off the soapbox folks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but who are the stated parents of this dog? The breeder left the ISSR in 1998 and all ties to the ISSR were severed at that time. How can the parents be ISSR stars?

On another note, if that picture is to remain in this article, I would ask that the self promoting commentary included on the picture page be removed. The other pictures included do not promote any particular group, but simply provide an example of coat/color. SandraSS 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The "self-promoting" commentary promotes the dogs accomplishments, not any registry or club. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the pic of Adam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plushcoatshilohshepherd.jpg

I can assure you that if you look at his pedigree, he DOES have AKC dogs in it. You think that the AKC would give him GSD papers now?? What about the GSDCA using THAT picture as a *perfect* example of a GSD???

You think THAT'S funny?? Well how should WE feel when we are forced (by the Wiki) to look at THIS!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SirHarley_of_Shenandoah_Kennel.JPG

Even if he has *some* ISSR dogs in his pedigree ... the analogy should be the SAME ... he is no more an ISSR "Shiloh Shepherd" then Adam is an AKC GSD! 67.186.153.43 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

What does being registered with the ISSR have to do with anything? How is that relevant to the picture at all? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The pictures in the article look really nice. The dog that is being disparged has been proven under the standard used by all and sent to ARBA by the breed founder. Wikipedia continues to do a great job at neutrality, and unbiased representation of shilohs that have proven themselves a good example to the breed standard. The puppies are adorable. Great to see Wikipedia continue to set the standard for "equality of all, representation" to all sides, equally as passionate to this breed standard. iamgateway 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Iamgateway, would you please answer this one question seriously: who is the breed founder? I don't mean to pick on you or anything, I just want an honest answer from you. I'm sure whomever owns this dog loves him and feels proud of him. The owner probably thinks he is the most beautiful dog in the world. I feel the same way about my dogs. Unfortunately, this particular dog is not a representative for the *ideal* Shiloh Shepherd. If you look at the breed standard, you will realize the dog is low stationed. This is considered a flaw in a Shiloh Shepherd.

Carmen

Find me a dog that every judge thinks has perfect conformation and then this argument might have weight. Obviously many judges felt he was an outstanding representative of the breed standard; he earned three times the show points of any other dog showing in ARBA. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, perhaps the picture doesn't do Harley justice. Have any of the people who are criticizing the dog actually seen him? I haven't, but he got 18,025 points in ARBA shows, and the next dog got 5795 points. For that many independent judges to put him up that many times, using the Shiloh standard, indicates that his conformation is exceptional, at least in the eyes of those judges. Regards S Scott 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Actually there are many better pictures of him but we chose not to use them as they were pictures filled with judges, rosettes, trophies, show placards, etc. It is very easy to be an arm chair quarterback and state there are better dogs. Maybe there are, so why not quit complaining and bring them to the shows and let the best dog win? In the meantime in less than two years this dog has 42 BIS, 15 Reserve BIS, 73 group 1 and 93 Best of Breeds under three different organizations. He is a 2x GV, an ARBA Master Champion, a Rarities Grand Champion and International Champion. In 2004 he was ARBA's # 3 dog, 2005 ARBA's # 1 dog. So far this year he is Rarities #2 dog [1]

He has been shown from East coast to West Coast, and has been judged by AKC, FCI,UKC and other foreign judges.If anyone feels all these organizations and their judges don't have the intelligence to understand a breed standard, then by all means let them know.

As for all of the negative comments, I consider the source. Many of us could fault the gray sable dog in the article also, but we have way too much class for that. Before anyone yells that dog is a pet, we all know he was shown and attempted to reproduce.ShenandoahShilohs 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There ARE dogs that are closer to the *ideal* than the one in the picture. In breed standards, there are minor faults and major faults. Apparently, ARBA's interpretation of the breed standard must be the final word in all rare breeds, although there have been cases of an organization misinterpreting, mistaking, and/or changing breed standards, sometimes under political pressure. Case in point, look at the American version of the GSD.

Carmen

We cannot speculate on ARBAs interpretation or "political pressure". There are other pictures in the article which should help give the full range. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for speculations, merely pointing out that such organizations are not infallible. History has proven that time and time again. I'm sure ShenandoahShilohs could provide a better picture of him or of another dog (this person does agree it is not this dog's best picture). On another note, I did not know that there were international competetitions for Shiloh Shepherds! That is really cool. :) What contries are the dogs competing in such events from?

Carmen

With all due respect, I do not address individuals on this particular site, in first person form. This is not the forum for personal dialogue. But for the record, the dog's owner did not place the dog in the top ARBA position, an unbiased organization, with multiple unbiased judges, that have all studied the breed standard written by Tina Barber, ARBA did this in arenas all around the US. All registries recognize and respect ARBA, as stated already. The owner of this particular shiloh is a humble peacable person that loves him for the family pet that he is. He has never been used at stud, he is a spoiled house dog, like most of the shilohs are and should be. All dogs shown in public can be called up with faults as there is no perfect dog out there, but it should, respectfully, not be done by amatures or by people with biased agendas. Claims of self promotion of dogs due to exposure can be jealously conjured up anywhere public exposure is given. But that too, is not productive nor progressive for this purpose. But I digress into objective opinions and "chat" that has nothing to do with article concensus, and I truly don't like to "chat". Wikipedia is not a forum for debate of personal opinions. This is a forum for literary writing for concensus done by editors. Please address your purpose towards the article and please do not address me personally, again. I am not interested in "idle chat". Thank-you. iamgateway 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"The dog that is being disparged has been proven under the standard used by all and sent to ARBA by the breed founder." That's why I asked. I wondered if there might be some general confusion as to factual information among readers. It has nothing to do with "idle chat" or anyone in particular. Like I said, I really did not mean to pick on anyone, but wanted to clear up what might have been confusion or a misunderstanding. Wow, what hostility.

Carmen

For the record, Harley’s sire is ‘Shenandoah’s the Phantom v Zion’ out of JNK’s Smokin Black Bear of Zion and Crane’s Our-Tribute-To-Contessa, and his dam is ‘Shenandoah’s Spirit of Tazzy’ out of Shenandoah’s The Taz of Zion and JNK’s Foxy Roxy Lady. “All” the dogs in his pedigree originated from exclusively ISSR Shiloh Shepherd stock – not just ‘some’ dogs, as has been alluded. Harley's pedigree is as much “Shiloh” as Adam’s is. His pedigree and ARBA show record justify the inclusion of his photo within the article. Shiloh Supporter

It should be further noted that "Shenandoah's The Taz of Zion" and Adam's dam "Zion's Raven Out of the Mist" are full-siblings. Dartagnan 14:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we got a lot of new pictures overnight :) Now if we just had some motion we might have the entire spectrum covered. Unfortunately it also cluttered up the article quite a bit, so I've put a gallery in to give us more room. As we keep expanding the article, we should get lots more space for pictures :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can give me time to ask Tina, I believe there is a picture of Meg in motion. She is a wonderful Shiloh girl that has the "perfect" flying trot! SandraSS 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Since it appears the history discussion is winding down and we've had a couple of questions about the health section and other areas, I figured it was time to bring this up again. We need to cite our sources for the information included in the article. For some things (like the history), we already have the link under External links to the breed club/registry site where we got the information for the history so we wouldn't need to include that twice -- same probably goes with the appearance and temperment; I believe that information is listed in the breed standard which is linked.

Since it was requested that the link to the GTF site which reproduces the health survey be removed, we need to either find another source for the common health issues, replace that link (putting it in a References section) or remove the statements from the article. Also, the opening paragraph (which really could use some work) states "the Giant Malamutes in their ancestry" for which we currently have no reference. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reply to this last night, but was banned so I lost the links I was going to share! Anyway, if you would like some, I will be happy to dig them up again! There is a lot of "controversy" regarding the GIANT Malamutes (just like there was over MY "Shilohs" back in the 70's & 80's) so it will be hard to find good (accurate) sources for that section & I promised not to devulge the name of the *real* kennel that helped me develop Samson ... hmmm not sure how to present this info properly? MaShiloh 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If its something that's a trade secret and cannot be divulged, it probably won't meet the standards of verifiability and should be removed. Anyone want to start work on a better opening paragraph? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this[2] will work as a reference for the Malamute component. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tina would be the best person to introduce her dogs :) SandraSS

That's a great project -- how to condense the breed to one paragraph :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why a dog that nowhere near fits the standard is being portrayed as a good example of the breed? I thought this site was about truths? --ShilohLynne 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How unfortunate and sad that some editors would find it necessary to resort to disparaging these beloved dogs, particularly editors who have contributed little, if anything, to the hard work that has gone into this article and who claim to love these Shilohs. Jareth has already requested once that this stop and I completely agree. I'm sure these "personal" attacks would not be appreciated if directed at anyone's Shilohs and and they have no place and serve no purpose in our article discussions here. Please get over it. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-1-2006 01:08 (UTC)}

Further forward

Alright, we've now got a history section that most everyone can live with for the time being. Its not the most brillant prose in the world and it certainly doesn't do a lot of justice to the scope of the development of the Shilohs. What would everyone think about adding something about how the dogs were actually developed? Something about the lines/breeds chosen and maybe techniques used to get the breed to this point?

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that its not a book -- we don't have to worry about size. So is anyone up to making this not just acceptable, but a great article? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

...or perhaps we could consider greatly expanding the section and seperating into breed history, club history and registry history? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. Having separate categories would look a lot better than that mish-mash of information currently showing. These dogs deserve a lot better than that. SandraSS 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded 67.186.153.43 13:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

Seems to me, since there is there hasn't been much agreement about these particular issues in the Shiloh history, that it is better at this point to leave the history section as is, since it is neutral. Re: breed history, as Jareth said: "If its something that's a trade secret and cannot be divulged, it probably won't meet the standards of verifiability", so how would we be able to discuss the breed and not discuss a contributor like "Samson"? Re: club/registry history, if you look back in the last 8 pages of archives, there were numerous attempts to include neutral, respectful histories of the NSBR-TSSR-SSBA and ISSDC and those efforts were met with criticism. Many, if not all, of the earlier proposals by some editors wanted either no mention of these registries/club or only mention in a derogatory or comparative fashion. This was not accepted because many editors argued these positions were inaccurate, POV and not neutral, and our first Straw Poll showed this strong consensus that these registries/club should be included and respected in this article. So, at this point, I think we should leave well enough alone for now and move on to other remaining article tasks. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-1-2006 00:40 (UTC)}

I support Jareth's suggestion of seperating the article into breed history, club history, and registry history. I too think it is a great idea.

Carmen

I would like to see the separate categories. I'm very interested in how the breed was developed, and think that should be expanded on quite a bit. That would help to put the focus of the article back on to the dogs, instead of so much focus on the politics. SusanT.

I'd love to see work done on this article, but as you can see, many people here are more interested in self-promotion and arguing than actually writing a good article. Its sad really. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've expanded and expanded and expanded -- well, you get the idea. Anyone up to trying to make the opening sound better? I've thought about it every which way but I've had no luck so far. I just don't like anything I come up with. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put the bug in Tina's ear and hopefully she will come up with something brilliant ;) I can't think of anyone more qualified to introduce the Shiloh Shepherd than the breed founder herself. SandraSS 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, I would like to see something about the various activities Shilohs are involved in such as SAR, agility, therapy, conformation, etc. Maybe we can get some ideas together for some commentary about that. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 01:07 (UTC)}

That's a great idea. I put in a sentence or two specifically about herding and agility, but we could definately add more information on the other activities as well. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To all of the registries/clubs/other vested parties

Take a break folks. Seriously. Go live lives outside of Wikipedia.

Its obvious that quite a number of people here have no interest whatsoever in following the guidelines of Wikipedia. Regardless of how many times its been requested that people read things like the neutral point of view policy or the guidelines on being civil we continue to have constant bickering over every last facet of the article. This silliness over the pictures is really the last straw.

I'm seriously tired of being called names, yelled at and told how stupid Wikipedia is because it won't let you put your point of view in the article. Them's the rules folks. If you don't like it, please feel free to express yourselves elsewhere. If you cannot and will not follow the guidelines and contribute to the article, get the hell out.

An RfC has already been started on one of the contributors; I'm seriously considering expanding it to include the behavior of all of the editors who've come here with nothing but a vested interest in this article and have done absolutely nothing to further the article or anything else on Wikipedia for that matter.

For those of you who have worked hard to compromise and find consensus, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate all of your efforts and the fortitude you've shown to stick with it. For those of you who've taken this chance to learn about the spirit of Wikipedia, I hope you'll go on and continue to contribute in other places -- this dispute is in no way an example of the typical behavior of Wikipedians.

In the grand scheme of things, the content of the article matters little -- the behaviors shown here speak volumes on their own. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Health section

I added a few details about the conditions listed in the health section to help expand the section a bit. Any other thoughts for that section? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to put the GTF link back in the article? OR is it too soon to ask ;) SandraSS 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the references into the proper section, Dr. Padgett's study is one of the references for the health section, so it will appear there. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth - the description of pano in the health section - could it possibly be re-worded to: Pano, similar to growing pains, is a self limiting syndrome (need a better word there) exhibited by shifting leg lameness. As is common in other large breeds, onset can be sudden but episodes Italic textusually resolve within a few weeks. Usually, no more episodes are experienced when the dog reaches physical maturity.

The reference to Dr Padgett's book and Shiloh Shepherds is really seriously out of date. No, I don't want it removed. Had Dr Padgett lived longer, perhaps he might have updated not only Shilohs, but other breeds as well. As you have done with the other sections, would it be possible to list the links to the GTF and whatever links the others wish to provide?

Corinne Corfil 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated the Pano section -- thanks for pointing that out; I had lumped it in with the other skeletal disorders, but it does generally go away on its own, unlike the others. Good catch! Feel free to edit the wording further if I didn't get it quite right.

I believe there was concern raised about the GTF link before due to its other links page on the site. I'm not sure that we ever came to a conclusion on it. The references section is by no means complete yet and will be updated as other things become available -- suggestions are welcome. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I know right now there's concern on both sides that some of the references contain one or another POV and you'd be correct. However, we do have both sides represented so that both are available to readers. We need to try to maintain this balance, but we can't pretend that the POVs and the dispute surrounding them doesn't exist. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have brought this conversation to the Health section topic.

Further, there are other health concerns not mentioned, some more prevalent than some that are mentioned. I am in the process of reviewing the wording and content of the health section. An example I do not agree with the wording of hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia occurs from a malformation of the hip, not from incomplete growth. Can we slow down here and give editors a chance to comment on this health section? Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What other conditions do you feel should be mentioned? Are there any listed now that you don't believe is a prevalent health issue? And you're right about dysplasia, improper growth would have been a better wording, but I'm sure there's an even better way to put it than that -- feel free to fix it :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how prevalent these are in the general population, but I know there are dogs affected by EPI and SAS. SandraSS 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Haven't seen an answer to this yet, so please comment. What remaining factual disputes are there on the article? That tag really isn't meant to stay there forever, just until the dispute is cleared up. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If noone has any further disputes about the facts in the article, I'll go ahead and take the tag off. Last chance to speak up :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see the dispute tag removed, and I don't want to be the one that stops it, however, with the history of disputes that this article has undergone and with the fact that the article is far from being in a completed status, I would hesitate to remove it at this time. It has definitely taken on a different tone, with all involved, but the current section that is being finalized has take months to complete. There are still other sections that need revised (ie..the health section) and still a lot of passion surrounding these areas. That is my two-cents but will hear other editors opinions and will agree to the majority vote here.iamgateway 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also hesitant to remove the dispute tag, with other sections unfinished. Thanks to all for the good compromises and helpful suggestions the last couple of days. S Scott 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Due to recent insertions there are still disputes and removing the tag would be premature. ShenandoahShilohs 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Job!!

I LOVE what you have done with the article!! I was looking at it last night and trying to figure out how to move the pictures around to make it look "less cluttered" Love the Gallery and reference section you added too. Good job!!

Just a thought tho. Could the picture of Laz be put back in the Appearance section next to the size part? Just because you have labled him as "showing size" SandraSS 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to expand the appearance section so we could fit him right up there too -- anyone want to take a stab at adding some more description up there? Its just about long enough now :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I squeezed and added some more appearance info. Now to work on the poor temperment section -- it looks so out of place since everything else is growing. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to figure out how to add a picture - is there somewhere I could send a picture to be included in the Gallery? CorinneCorfil 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you've uploaded it, just let me know where its at, if not, you can go to my user page, click on Email this user (in the lower left hand box) and send it over, or:

1. Click on "upload file" in the sidebar
2. Select the file from your computer that you want to upload
3. Select a descriptive name for the image
4. Select the appropriate license for the file
5. Edit the page you want the image to appear on, and include in the gallery: Image:(Filename you chose in step 4).(extension of file, case sensitive)|Caption text
6. Save the page with an edit summary that describes what you did (eg. "added image") .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Temperment section

I wanted to bring this up here first since I anticipate there may be some disagreement on this subject. I'd like to add something in the section about the puppy temperment testing. As I understand it, breeders with the ISSR are required use the LER, developed by Tina and breeders with the other registries may use the Volhard test; both are done at or around 8 weeks of age. If there's no concerns with including that information, I'll put it in, otherwise we can hash it out or decide it would just be better to leave out. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem is stating the ISSR uses the LER that Tina specifically developed to temperament test ISSR puppies and the others use whatever it is they use. SandraSS 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the LER requirement for ISSR registrable litters included also.

Thanks for the change on the pano section.

In the begining part of the temperament section it is stated that Shilohs are good at personal protection. When I think of personal protection dogs, I think more of attack type trained dogs. I think that would be at odds with the ideal companion characteristic. Shilohs will protect what they consider as "theirs" but I think it would be an aberration of temperament for them to really get into personal protection type work. Could that be softened a bit?

Corinne Corfil 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. "Personal" for them is really personal :) I can see how the name might be a bit misleading. Perhaps we can seperate it out with a small sentence like I did for agility and herding to better explain it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the agility reference and I'd also like to see something re: Shilohs also participating/competing in conformation show rings. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 13:25 (UTC)}

Like I said above, it would be great to have a short note about each sport or activity and perhaps an explanation of why Shilohs are well suited for it. :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 13:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, could the temperament section be limited to the temperament of the breed? If others want to list activities, could another heading be started for that sort of thing? ie: Sports/Activites. SandraSS 15:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorted that out; see if there's anything more in the temperment section you think should be moved elsewhere. Working Shiloh Shepherds section has been started and a little more added to it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What does the R in LER stand for? I've seen it called the Litter Evaluation Program, but I want to make sure I get it right before we put in the bit about puppy testing. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

LER stands for Litter Evaluation report It is something that is prepared for the breeder in order to help them with proper placement of their pups! Not every puppy is the same .. some have more drive then people would want, but they could be great for SAR work, etc... Placing a "couch potato" into a *working* home and a "working dog" with an older couple could become a problem!! We also evaluate breeding potential ... a dog with a horrible hook/gay tail (like a Malamute) could still be a wonderful companion ... but should NOT be used for breeding ... etc. etc. MaShiloh 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

History Section divided

I have divided the history into Breed/Club/Registry. The information is pretty much the same as in the article now, just put into the different categories and re-worded to make sense. I think this looks better than what is currently showing. Please have an open mind when commenting. SandraSS 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

--Breed History--

In 1974, Tina Barber began developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo.

In 1990, Barber separated her stock from the AKC and in 1991 started the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). Ms. Barber continues to actively participate in the development of the breed. She is the President of the SSDCA, Inc and Breed Warden of the ISSR.

--Club History--

In 1990, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was formed. In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive. During this time, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. The SSDCA reopened in 1998. The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reopened in 2004.

I don't want to "nit-pick" but the second ISSDC is not the same as the first This is a new group, consisting of the secretary from the original ISSDC (that Gary & Dan started) plus a few others MaShiloh 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

--Registry History--

Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until Ms.Barber opened the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) in 1991.

In 1998 the ISSDC opened their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. In 2001, the ISSDC registry was closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed registry functions for the ISSDCr. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) in 2002.

I can only see a couple of things incorrect. The SSDCA was started in 1991, not 1990 per all other writings including the origins book and the NYS Incorporation web site.

Also, the NYS Incorporation shows the ISSR as 1993, but the Origins book states 1992. Since it could have been operating for a while before incorporation I can agree to 1992, not 1991.

Last thing, you have listed the start of the registry in both the history and the registry section. I don't think it needs to be in both, it is redundant.

Other than that I think it looks fine.ShenandoahShilohs 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The SSDCA was incorporated in July 1991 ... and if THAT is the criteria that we shall use, then by all means .. please use ONLY the proper Incorporation dates for all "registries" "clubs" etc.... FAIR ENOUGH?? Otherwise, since the ISSR is *my* "registry" and it consists of MY data, that I have collected since 1974 ... maybe we should state that the ISSR represents ALL of Tina Barbers data, collected since the breeds inception in 1974?? MaShiloh 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tina has a point. Are we going with when the entities were first started or when they were first incorporated? What about those entities that have never been incorporated? What source are we using to verify when they were started? ie: NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, new ISSDC? SandraSS 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the seperation of sections is a clean approach. It reads well, it is balanced and I would vote a "go" on it. I would like to see the adjustments that ShenandoahShilohs added for the tweaks on the dates as they can then be proven via NPOV's. The repetition of the "start of the registry" would be better listed once in either the history or the registry section. Other than those small pieces, it looks good. iamgateway 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this is my suggestion. I do not speak for the SSDCA Board or other SSDCA editors. They may have different ideas. The dates will have to be verified by Tina/SSDCA Board. SandraSS 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reopened in 2004" should to be changed to "The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reorganized in 2004 as a unifying parent club for the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA registries. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 12:52 (UTC)}

This clarifies the reorganization much better and also gives the club seperation of organizations (to avoid confusion) which I know people want clarified. This addition is necessary. Good idea and good catch. iamgateway 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The clubs are talked about in the Club section, the registries are talked about in the Registry section. The reader can visit the links to find out further information re: what clubs are associated with what registries. SandraSS 15:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt to point out that the SSDCA is the parent club for the ISSR and the ISSDC is the parent club for the others. Wouldn't need to be anything more than just a couple of words. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about this. Is it possible for owners of ISSR registered dogs to be members of the ISSDC? Also, are there owners of NSBR, TSSR, or SSBA registered dogs that are members of the SSDCA? I just wonder if making that distinction would lead people to think that each club is exclusive to their own registry and which club you can join depends on where the dog is registered. SandraSS 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The SSDCA constitution states "the I.S.S.R., Inc. as the only legitimate registry" and "to refer prospective new Shiloh Shepherd puppy owners ONLY to breeders that are in good standing with the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America, Inc." and allows non-breeders to join as long as they are in "good standing with the ISSR". The ISSDC states "This club recognizes all Shiloh Shepherds regardless of registry affiliation." and is open to anyone who "subscribes to the purposes and objectives of the ISSDC and agrees to abide by the ISSDC Code of Ethics". Between those well worded statements and many of the statements that have appeared during the discussions I would suggest that it would be highly improbable that a member of the ISSR would be permitted to join the ISSDC and vice versa. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is incorrect. The ISSDC openly accepts members from the ISSR/SSDCA. It's pretty clearly explained at the bottom of the ISSDC Open Invitiation. A number of former members have made the switch over since the ISSDC inception. Your comments that "I would suggest that it would be highly improbable that a member of the ISSR would be permitted to join the ISSDC" is untrue. Gwyllgi 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. I didn't mean to suggest that you wouldn't accept anyone, just that I don't believe one could be a member of both at the same time. IIRC, Tina has explicitly stated that one cannot be a member of ISSR/SDDCA and any other club/registry. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't recommend that anything in the History section, as it currently appears in the article, be changed on the face of the article page, until a full revision with any and all new suggestions and changes, is presented here for review and consenses. Suggestions are flying fast right now and I don't want to see other editors miss the opportunity to comment and contribute, with us then having another dispute over "whats in the article". Until we all have a chance to consider these suggestions and add our consensus, and before anything is changed in the article history section, we really need to see a "final" version on the talk page first. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 15:53 (UTC)}

Ok, encorporating the suggestions made so far and a little movement for readability, how's this?

--Breed History--

In 1974, Tina Barber began developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo.

In 1990, Barber separated her stock from the AKC. She continues to actively participate in the development of the breed. She is the President of the SSDCA, Inc. and Breed Warden for the ISSR.

--Club History--

In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was formed. In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive for a short period of time. They reopened in early 1998 and remains active as the breed club for the ISSR.

During SSDCAs inactive period, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was opened. The ISSDC closed in 2001 and was reorganized in 2004 as the breed club for the SSBA, NSBR and TSSR.

--Registry History--

Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until Ms. Barber opened the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) in 1992.

In 1998 the ISSDC opened their own registry, called the ISSDCr. It was closed in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after to assume its registry functions. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) in 2002.

Anything else that needs changed/added/removed? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be difficult Jareth, but could we wait until other SSDCA editors have had a chance to review this topic and respond? Taking the word of an ISSDC representative as to what dates are correct for the SSDCA/ISSR seems a bit odd to me. Another thing, IF it is going to be stated which club is involved with which registry, could it be stated that the SSDCA is the breed club for the ISSR and not the partner as I don't think that is accurate. SandraSS 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't planning on moving it any time soon, just trying to get it started in the right direction. I actually verified the dates with what we have in the article right now, which I believe were agreed upon earlier, but I'd be happy to wait until we're sure those are the right dates. And you're correct about the clubs, I've worded them both the same now. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I found this link that shows the ISSR was registering litters in 1991. Will this be satisfactory proof that the ISSR was started in 1991? http://www.shilohshepherds.info/littersandbreeders.htm

In looking at the charts on this link http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrCharts.htm there were ISSR litters born in 1990, so saying the ISSR was started in 1991 seems fair to me. SandraSS 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The changes in the latest draft of the club history were not suggested on this discussion page. I suggest we keep the version that editors have already agreed to (just below the "History Divided" topic heading), which includes the minor additions and changes that were brought up amicably right after the draft. Otherwise, portions of the article that have consensus already will be reopened for discussion and possible conflict. This would be going backwards.

Club history agreed to: "In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was formed. In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive. During this time, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. The SSDCA reopened in 1998. The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reopened in 2004."

With a sentence added at the end, as mentioned in the earlier exchange, the registry history will read

"Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until Ms.Barber opened the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) in 1991.

"In 1998 the ISSDC opened their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. In 2001, the ISSDC registry was closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed registry functions for the ISSDCr. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) in 2002. When the ISSDC reorganized in 2004, it became the unifying parent club for the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA."

S Scott 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Excuse me for not getting your opinion before I tried to reword it so that it at least made sense. Since the childish behavior over the article shows no signs of stopping, I will be filing an addendum to the current editor RfC in an attempt to retain what little sanity I have left. I have never seen people behave in such a manner. I repeat my suggestion that all editors with vested interests find other articles to edit or other things to do with their time. It would be nice if you all would allow editors who couldn't care less about your stupid dispute to write a coherent article. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Appearance: Suggestion

On the article page, there is one place that I would like, somehow, to clean up. Between the contents list and the top picture, there is a wide white blank space. Can there be something added, enlarged, placed there so that the reader is prompted to scroll down. As it stands, It comes up on most screens as a large void. I would like to see something that would hook the reader to want to read through the article, in that blank void. What about the puppy picture? That may crowd that area, but not if it is done with balance. Any other suggestions? iamgateway 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's a software thing -- we can't actually put anything in there. The breed box on the right gets away with it because its stuffed in a table at the very top of the article. I tried to put some longer section titles in so there isn't quite so much white space, but I'm afraid we're mostly stuck with it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

References and External Links (adds)

References

• Barber, Tina M. (1993). The Origins of the Shiloh Shepherd In Word & Picture - accessed January, 2006
• SSDCA, Inc. (2003). The Original Shiloh Shepherd - A Rare Breed Dog. Revision 5, - accessed December 2005
• TSSR. (2003). Shiloh Coat Color Guide, pdf, - accessed January 2006
• Padgett, George A., DVM. (2002).Genetic Diseases and Estimated Carrier Frequency of the Shiloh Shepherd - accessed January 2006
• ISSDC, Inc. (2006).ISSDC Dogs at Work - accessed January 2006

External links

• Photographic guide to Shiloh coat colors
• ISSR, Inc. photographic guide to color conformation, pdf

Since there has been much so discussion and dispute among all editors, re: the inclusion of original resources and information in the actual article page, Jareth has suggested these controversial inclusions could be moved to the talk page for further discussion and consensus. Perhaps we can all take a little time to think about, discuss and figure out what's appropriate and agreeable. Thank you.|||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 15:32 (UTC)}

I've put these back for now, since a wikipedia article cannot exist without citing its sources. Discuss though, in my outsiders viewpoint - it looks like both groups are represented here. No single groups status is elevated over the other. - Trysha ^(talk) 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a finished article. This is an article in development and dispute. This has existed without references since when, 2003? The concerns do not involve "elevation"...as stated above they involve original research and verifiability. These inclusions have not reached consensus. In addition, we are not objecting to the inclusion of a References section, we are concerned with some of the inclusions in that seciton and the External links section. I can appreciate the need to perform to Wiki policy...that is why these inclusions are of such concern. Finally, there are numerous dog breed articles that do not include a References section...see GSD page. Why is this particular unfinished article's reference section of such concern now. Thank you.|||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 16:22 (UTC)}

Pardon my disagreement but I am not sure how you can claim no single groups status has not been elevated. In the reference and external link section one group has a link to nothing more than a pdf showing some Shiloh coat colors. There are no other links attached, no disparaging remarks made toward anyone.

The next link to that group shows the versiatility of the Shiloh Shepherd Breed. While there are navigational links to the main web site there are no disparaging remarks made about other Shiloh groups on that site.

One of the main link of contention is:

• Padgett, George A., DVM. (2002).Genetic Diseases and Estimated Carrier Frequency of the Shiloh Shepherd - accessed January 2006

We feel it falls under: wp:Original research and the following Wiki policies should apply.

Evaluating experiments and studies

There are certain techniques that scientists use to prevent results from being contaminated by certain kinds of common errors, and to help others replicate results.

Experimental control Placebo controls Ensuring demographic information aligns with the general population to check that the sample is sufficiently random

Double-blind medical studies

Present a high degree of detail about the design and implementation of the experiment; don't just present the results.

Make raw data available; don't just present conclusions

Statistics

Statistical information is easily and often misinterpreted by the public, by journalists, and by scientists. It should be checked and explained with the utmost care, with reference to published sources.

See Misuse of statistics, Opinion poll, and Statistical survey for common errors and abuses

Further, comments made on various sections of this web site are not only false, they are certainly not proven and one person's POV used to disparage others. This is just one example from this web site, I would be happy to cite more if needed:

"OUR PRESENT

Now take a moment to look at the next 3 charts that actually list the diseases reported! You may notice that it appears as if genetic diseases are becoming more prevalent since additional diseases are being added to the pie ... but in reality, many of the dogs that have been producing these problems have already gone "over" to the splinters and will NOT be effecting our gene pool any longer!! Nevertheless, if we are not careful, we could be looking at charts that are MUCH worse than these!! So please take some time to ponder the individual groups, as you keep in mind that many of those that should have submitted their information to this study did NOT do so ;( "

Also on Wiki:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues).

Further, many of these references fall short of WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV

The acceptance of these links, as well as other edits, have been in discussion for two months now. There has been an agreed upon moratorium to additional information and links pertaining to the article until community concensus had been reached. There was a request for mediation filed. Nothing has really been finalized and may need to go to RFC and ARB to do so.

While it would be great to have an indepth article that may just not be possible with so many disputes and no real third paty reliable sources available at this time. To quote another admin, Wiki is an ongoing process and as more verifiable, third party resources may come available then at that time maybe more can be added. Until that time I don't think is is justified to place verbage or links to a disputed article that has not met either community consenus or gone to arbitration.

In fairness to the editors that have spent two months on this article I request the removal of the links in the reference and external link section for the reasons stated.

Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Make raw data available; don't just present conclusions - does anyone have a link to the raw data from the study or another reference for the common health problems in Shilohs?
• Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence - honestly, are the health problems an "exceptional claim"??

Here's the deal guys, like Trysha said, articles *must* have sources. Just because others exist that don't doesn't make them right -- feel free to go add references to those articles. The dispute exists -- the sides obviously don't get along -- hiding links won't change this or people's ability to find out about it. Unless you're saying that the information in the health survey is wrong and thus the health section shouldn't be based off of it? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the info at the GTF isn't the raw data, the link has been removed. If anyone has the original data from Dr. Padgett's study somewhere, we can link it or just leave the reference as is. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the information on the ISSR Website as "Dr. Padgett's study" is incorrect. As I understand it, Dr. Padgett was given results from the health survey that had been tabulated by someone in the ISSR and commented on those results.S Scott 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Health problems in themselves aren't "exceptional claims." However, data in the ISSR health survey results are. The results state that Shilohs have about an 11% incidence of hip dysplasia. OFA stats indicate around 22% for the breed. (Don't have the page up, but it's in the low 20%.) This is a huge difference. The ISSR figure is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional evidence. Because the health survey results can't be verified, the link to them should not appear in a Wiki article. S Scott 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

I must really be dense as I do not understand what the problem is for having those reference/external links included. I visited all of the ISSR/SSDCA/Barber links and there is nothing on any of those pages other than the information. Is the problem that there are more of the ISSR/SSDCA links provided than ISSDC links? That is probably due to the fact that the ISSR/SSDCA have been in existence longer than the other groups and have had the opportunity to accomplish more. As for the GTF link, is it possible to refer it to the ISSR GTF Project? The GTF is an ongoing project that includes more than just Dr. Padgett's findings, but rather is continually updated.SandraSS 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some true third party reliable sources for the Reference section (re: health) such as OFA [3], Penn HIP [4] and CERF [5]. Further, since the source of our breed's primary genetic make up comes from the German Shepherd why not link to a Veterinarian web site like this one,[6], listing the most common ailments. These organizations are not only third party reliable, they are non-affiliated, unbiased repositories for raw data, and widely accepted throughout the canine world. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 18:44 (UTC)}

Oh, darn. And we were doing so well on this, too. I am in serious disagreement with the links being added in the reference section without discussion and agreement on this page and ask that they be removed until we can get all this resolved.

First of all, the wording and formatting of the link with Dr. Padgett's name in it are misleading in the extreme. The format is identical to that of the other links. Those links are to publications written by the author or organization: Tina Barber, ISSDC, SSDCA.

Looking at the reference, the reader would conclude that Dr. Padgett wrote an article on health concerns in the Shiloh Shepherd. This is untrue. Following the link takes the reader to the ISSR Web site. Most of the page consists of a table of diseases/defects.

At the bottom of the page are these two statements, which are the only references to Dr. Padgett:

"To learn more about the methodology used on our health survey, as well as the terminology used here in this webpage, please read 'Control of Canine Genetic Diseases' by Dr. George A. Padgett DVM

"We owe a special debt of thanks to Dr. Padgett for working with Tina Barber and the ISSR registered Shiloh Shepherd breeders, and for the seminar at Homecoming 2001 where he presented his findings from the results of the Shiloh Shepherd Health Survey 2000."

The health survey results don't appear to be verifiable. It is my understanding that Dr. Padgett didn't conduct the health survey. That is, he didn't receive all the completed survey forms directly from respondents, have the results tabulated under his supervision or tabulate them himself, and then present his findings in hard copy format. Rather, he commented on the results that he was given, which didn't include raw data.

Sorry, that is a conclusion you have reached based on.......???

Corinne205.188.116.13 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Dr. Padgett didn't publish an article on the results that's available to the general public. Were his comments on survey results given orally? As it stands now, the results appear to be unverifiable, and including that link is problematic. Please let me know if I've misunderstood any aspects of this dilemma. Regards, S Scott 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

---

The seminar was taped. Not by anyone currently affiliated with the SSDCA - would that be acceptable?

Corinne205.188.116.13 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think that now might be a good time to look back and read the proposal contents of the first Straw Poll and its results, showing overwhelming consensus (18-4-7 I think) to accept "all points", as confirmed and stated by editors, incuding two adminstrators, Elf and Trysha. It should also be noted, there has been no consensus or Straw Poll since then nullifying or reversing it.

I think the proposal, and the resulting poll affirming it, addresses both how article links were going to be handled and also how information re: Shiloh Shepherd health was going to be handled:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_4#Dispute.28s.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_4#Straw_Poll

Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 20:23 (UTC)}

I wondered when this would come back up. I never understood why no changes were made to the article based on it. However, regarding the health section:

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

I see nothing in the health that promotes one registry/club or another. I'm certain testing suggestions can be added, but honestly, "these reports clearly show that, as giant breeds go, the Shiloh is arguably a healthy example" is quite a bit of opinion, especially since you're now disputing "these reports".

Also, the poll did not address anything about references or external links aside from agreeing that all clubs/registries would have a link to their homepage in the section and not multiple links scattered throughout the article. References are required: WP:CITE and WP:V make that clear. Since you agreed that "these reports" should be used as the basis for the health section and the poll confirmed, the reports must be listed in the references section. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, "these reports" were referring to the reports of the verifiable organizations, OFA, PH, CERF that we had edit to include but were removed. Those are the reports I was agreeing to. They are 3rd party reliable sources. ShenandoahShilohs 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

At one point during this lengthy discussion, wasn't it your position that the majority of the data was not from ISSR dogs in OFA, PH and CERF? So the statistics that those 3rd party sources represent the affected status of mostly non-ISSR dogs?

Corinne 205.188.116.13 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct to assume by the above statement that ISSR registered dogs do not have their hips/elbows examined by OFA/Pennhip? If so, what is the method for obtaining such testing on the dogs and what party determines their status, and hence what provides the source findings that would be used in the survey? This is not instigating, but rather trying to validate the source data used for such a survey on the breed. Gwyllgi

You may assume anything you like. However, that was not what I said. In this discussion the OFA dysplastic percentage for Shilohs was stated to be 22%. My memory may be faulty, but I thought the statement as I wrote it was one of the original arguments made by that poster. Corinne

---

Perhaps the confusion lies on our part as we are all relatively new members of the Wiki community. I've tried my best to understand the three content policies and my understanding is that they are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I guess where I get lost is when something being used as WP:V or WP:CITE is seemlingly (via my interpretation - which could be wrong) in breach of one of the three content policies. I guess I'm just not following how an editors own articles (or any contritubor articles - regardless of affiliation) are accepted if they contain original research and POV.

The example I guess would be the GTF survey whereby it would seem to fall under a breach of this section as it is source material and self generated. Let's say the DJD rate was reported at 2%, would that be true/accurate? Who knows. Sources such as OFA do provide breed specific reports that are available on line. I would guess that using those sources would be considered as provided by a third party with no vested interest in the results.

Or another statement contained in the "Origins" link that was inserted into the article Origins Chapter 5 which has a quote: "...I had almost forgotten who's dogs they really were!! My boss, The Jewish Carpenter from Nazareth, had other plans for HIS breed.". Now, whether or not I agree with a statement like that is totally irrelevant, but what is relevant is that I would assume this would be POV and is being cited as a reference source for the article? Perhaps others may feel it's Allah's breed, or belong to Buddha, or even the Flying_Spaghetti_Monster, who knows, everyone will have a different opinion on this.

Like other editors on both sides of the fence here, a lot of time has been spent on this article and we still have much work to do. Items like these will hinder forward progress just when forward progress/compromise is being found.

I think both side are working to reach a collective middle ground, but articles with such POV and Original research that cannot be validated will be difficult to agree upon. Again, if my interpretation of some of the Wiki content policies is incorrect simply let me know - I am trying to understand them and utilize them in this article and other areas I am trying to contribute on Wiki. Gwyllgi

These sections may help:

• Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly.

• Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account.

• A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

So we can use sources that are POV, especially when we also uses sources from the opposing POV and this is extremely important for controversial topics. When we use something that has POV in it, we should try to have other sources as well. For all these reasons and also because it doesn't contain the raw data, the link to the GTF was removed from the reference and only the fact that Dr. Padgett prepared a report remains. Since there is no online copy of the data he used to prepare the charts, no link is given. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that OFA, PH or CERF would have data on bloat, SIBO, Pano or OCD? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"a recommendation by ALL registries/clubs that testing be conducted and a statement that "these reports clearly show that, as giant breeds go, the Shiloh is arguably a healthy example".

The statement says that the article should contain a recommendation that Shilohs be tested. The GTF is not a test; it is a survey (see: http://www.shilohgtf.com/Survey.htm for "Please let us know if this is the first time you've filled out this survey".) The GTF also collects its data through "self-reporting" by Shiloh owners and does not require submitted 3rd party, professional (i.e. veterinary) test results. The proposal and consensus clearly ties testing and "these reports" to testing, not surveys. Surveys are not mentioned.|||MilesD.||| ^{02-2-2006 22:46 (UTC)}

The GTF is the Genetic Task Force. It is made up of elected Board of Advisors members of the SSDCA Inc and SSDCA member volunteers. Please do not speak to that which you do not have knowledge - regarding what we require for information submitted via the website data collection tool. As I am a very active member of the GTF I do know what goes on and how it is operated. Further, we promised participants in both the health survey and the ongoing data collection tool via the GTF website that their data, dog's name and their own personal information would remain confidential. We honor that pledge and will continue to do so.

Corinne205.188.116.13 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I thought we were talking about a reference to Dr. Padgett who may or may not have created a report that helped identify the incidence of conditions in the Shiloh. What the GTF does now and whether or not its a report doesn't really have any bearing on that. As was noted above, since the link went to an interpretation of the data and not the data itself, it was unlinked.

I am sorry, I am not clear what this is referring to. Corinne

How precisely would you suggest you gather health results across a breed? What "test" would you perform? Dr. Padgett's surveys and work with genetics are quite well known and respected. This was not an opinion survey, but a collection of diagnosed conditions to form the basis of raw data for reporting. Since you agree with the results from that study, what precisely is the issue? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess what's being questioned is that Dr Padgett provided a summary of the data that was presented to him through original research with no verifiable sources. No one is challenging Dr Padgett himself, but rather the findings that he presents. Eg. if the report submitted (300ish Shilohs reported) had zero health fault would the report then say that this breed is superior and without health issues? The summary is only as good as the data which unfortunately is unverifiable. It should also be noted that since the survey is only open to "ISSR registered shilohs" any data that is collected from dog owners is only from a "closed section" of the shiloh breed and technically club/registry specific. I suppose the concern here is that the incidence of condition report relies on unverifiable and disputed data.

You state "This was not an opinion survey, but a collection of diagnosed conditions to form the basis of raw data for reporting." Was it vet findings, OFA/Pennhip X-rays, etc that were submitted to compile the data? I cannot speak for others, but I have issues when unverifiable information is used as source material and is take from a group that has a vested interest in demonstrating excellent health. I'm surprised this is earning so much discussion. Gwyllgi

Jareth, for comparison purposes on how the Health Survey was conducted, look to the White Shepherds. They were the folks who initially introduced us to Dr Padgett and the Health Survey that the SSDCA conducted was the of a similar pattern as that of the White Shepherds. Perhaps you could ask the chair of their genetic committee how those initial statistics were gathered/compiled? Corinne 205.188.116.13 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am having a hard time trying to understand the above paragraph. It says that no one is challenging Dr Padgett himself, but rather the findings he presents. Well, darn, how can anyone answer that, the man is dead. The data is not unverifiable, what it is is confidential and not available in its raw form to you or anyone else. As to it being open only to ISSR registered dogs, that is a misinterpretation that I have seen time and again - to what purpose? Corinne

And you know that is it unverified just because you term it as such? I am also surprised that you keep beating a dead horse. Corinne

And I also said -- Provide another source that states the common health problems of the Shiloh or delete the damn section. Since everyone seems to agree with the common health problems that Dr. Padgett discovered and since I *highly* doubt a man of his integrity would be duped by tainted data, I find it amazing that this dispute continues. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not insinuate anything that would grant a comment such as "since I *highly* doubt a man of his integrity would be duped by tainted data". I stated there was no verification of the data used, is there something available that indicates otherwise. I too find it amazing the insistance of accepting a report based on unverifiable data and sponsored by a group with a bias towards the result. I suppose I object that in the absence of verifiable third party sources that unverifiable ones are being utilized. Gwyllgi

Dr. Padgett did not discover these health problems. Whether the problems exist is not the focus of the disagreement. It's the incidence of the problems that can't be verified.

The surveys, which were based on self-reports by owners, not vet reports, were completed by self-nominated Shiloh owners - the survey wasn't random. The surveys were mailed to the ISSR, the results were tabulated by the ISSR, those results were given to Dr. Padgett, and he commented on the results given to him. The information on which he based his remarks is not verifiable.

In addition, the incidence of one of the most prevalent health conditions in Shilohs, hip dysplasia, was reported by the ISSR at 11%. OFA reports it around 22%. This is an astonishing difference. There is no way to verify the 11%.

It's puzzling to me that anyone would claim the information should be linked to or included.

If we use information from the independent organizations that receive vet reports - OFA, CERF, etc., we'll be using verifiable information as to condition and incidence. If we also list the health problems of the GSD, we'll cover virtually all health concerns of Shilohs. S Scott 00:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

"It should also be noted that since the survey is only open to "ISSR registered shilohs" any data that is collected from dog owners is only from a "closed section" of the shiloh breed and technically club/registry specific."

This statement is actually not true. The GTF survey is not restricted to ISSR registered dogs. SandraSS 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Then contrary to claims made in this talk and found in some of the sources referenced throughout these discussions over the past few months that "non-ISSR" registered dogs are indeed Shiloh Shepherds and not "GSD mixes" or "mutts" as previously claimed. Is there any information that you can offer as to what percentage of Shilohs submitted to the ISSR health survey (GTF) are ISSR registered and non-ISSR registered Shiloh Shepherds? Gwyllgi

That is a really interesting way of using something that wasnt said to try to prove a POV. Please stop asking for the data, you won't get it. The health survey that was conducted is completed. Those statistics/numbers however you want to term it is completed. The public dissemination of confidential information to suit you and others will not happen. The data collection via the GTF website is ongoing.

We are not asking for a full blown explanation in the article about either the GTF or the health survey. Just that the link to the GTF remain. Corinne

I'd just like to note that no one has tried to add specific percentages to the article based on any research. I guess the question is, do you dispute any of the conditions listed as common health problems? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A little background on the health survey. The questionnaire was based on that of the White Shepherd. It was reviewed by Dr. Padgett prior to its being published on our website and sent out to all owners of registered ISSR Shiloh Shepherds in 2000. The survey was open to all.

Completed survey forms were sent to the TCCP and forwarded in batches to me as a member of the Genetic Task Force for data entry. We received surveys from owners of dogs registered both with the ISSR and with the ISSDCr. We still have copies of all the original surveys.

Dr. Padgett had a standard procedure for receiving data on the breed surveys. He specified exactly how he wanted to receive the results of the survey and what type of information was to be provided. The raw data was summarized in a table according to his stated requirements. He then made his calculations and produced his chart for the club. This was his standard operating procedure. As Corinne already noted, Dr. Padgett presented the results in a seminar to a large group of people at our 2001 Homecoming, with his lecture recorded on video.

Trillhill 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is now clear that Dr Padgett only made calculations on what was provided to him. The surverys went through numerous hands, and due to the unwillingness to provide verification of the raw data used and the fact it was based on a small percentage of Shilohs, there is contention that it should not be used to ascertain the health issues of Shilohs.

Further it does not meet Wiki's guidelines for scientific research. If necessary, mention of Dr Padgett's survery as it is now under references with no links could be acceptable. Linking to it would be providing unverifiable statistics. Again, one could revisit Wiki's Scientific research and the section on the possible misuses of statistics.

I would also like to see reference to the organizations I have previously mentioned. They are third party reliable sources highly accepted by the canine world and give proof to many of the Shiloh Shepherd's health concerns by utilizing raw data from certified Veterinarians. I also feel the link to a Veterinarian website listing ailments for GSD's would be a reliable source of health concerns for the Shiloh since our breed's genetic makeup is primarily GSD and are suseptable to GSD ailments. I feel these are much more reliable than a survery of a limited sampling of dogs with no verifiable documentaion used to complete the survery. It has been said by people that attended Dr Padgetts seminar that it was his recommendation that the only way to utilize this survery and combat health issues was to have an open data base like the White GSD's do. I would have to question why the promotion of his name on this survery if his recommendation are not being followed?

Further, there are other health concerns not mentioned, some more prevalent than some that are mentioned. I am in the process of reviewing the wording and content of the health section. An example I do not agree with the wording of hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia occurs from a malformation of the hip, not from incomplete growth. Can we slow down here and give editors a chance to comment on this health section?

Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What other conditions do you feel should be mentioned? Are there any listed now that you don't believe is a prevalent health issue? And you're right about dysplasia, improper growth would have been a better wording, but I'm sure there's an even better way to put it than that -- feel free to fix it :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute arises all over again

We were so close, it was at consensus. What happened! A random suggest was made when the article was at consensus: "Maybe the other registries could also suggest additional factual information that could be added to the other sections -- or perhaps we could consider greatly expanding the section and seperating into breed history, club history and registry history?" Why this was made, I am not sure, at all. But here it is again, the disputes. And I have to admit, what has been added since that suggestion, should be disputed. Pictures wars came out, NPOV added, editing wars are seemingly going to start up, this is getting very frustrating especially since we were on the verge of concensus. So many editors have spent hours working very hard for this article only to find it in "round two" of things already discussed and settled upon a long time ago. Is there anyway that we can go back to the article that WAS in consensus, revert it to that point and then move forward again? My concern is that editing wars are looming. Editors are making changes without discussion, or respect of presentation to all the other editors working on this article. It is not a single handed literary piece here even though that would make it so much easier to finish, but as it is, there are many passionate editors working with this article. And to make it more tedious, two groups of editors with obvious tension are trying to participate and agree. I just don't understand why the pot was stirred to begin with when we had come so far and we were moving forward. What can be done to bring this article around again? iamgateway 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually like what Jareth has done in expanding the article. She has put a lot of time and work into it and it looks 100% better than it was before. SandraSS 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think that anyone is disputing that the article has not made forward progress, or the time and efforts put forth by all the editors here. Words such as "immiators" and "dissidents" that were initially present are no longer found, incorrect "TM" symbols have been removed, and I would think that everyone agrees we are getting closer to a NPOV representation of the breed. Unfortunately, just when it appears forward progress begins, set-backs are raised and delay the further development and completion of the article. Gwyllgi

It isn't the restructuring that I was/am concerned about, it is the addition of the links that have been discussed in the past, that were reinstated knowing the disputes that some had behind them. However, if editors from both sides agree to what is being added and is visible as part of the article, I have said I would go with concensus. The disputes are not over the format of article but with the current disputed addition of certain pictures of the dogs and the new addition of the links that don't seem to fall under the Wikipedia rules for links. But if editors from both sides feel this is acceptable and it is approved, then by all means, concensus has been met. Maybe I am misunderstanding the progress, I will revisit the history and editors discussions. iamgateway 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Since the article has been expanded, we see that new photos have been added and photos that were moved to the gallery have been moved back up into the article. So, since there is now more room, we've also now moved the puppies photo, that was moved down to the gallery during the expansion, up to the "variant colors" section and moved the dog photo that was there up to "Appearance". Since the introduction of photos to the article, in a concerted effort to avoid edit wars and reverts, we have not moved, removed, disparaged, or in any way touched, any other photos that have been added by any other editors. We are requesting that the same courtesies and consideration be extended to us and these contributions to this article, unless there is a consensus from all editors that they be changed. As we have refrained from any commentary on the "quality" of any dogs portrayed in any photos that have been added, we also ask again that editors refrain from personally attacking these beloved animals and/or the people who are their breeders or human families and that they adhere to Wiki policy (WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{02-3-2006 14:16 (UTC)}