Talk:Dog

Body temperature

Could someone more experienced add in a section about the dog's body temperature, like the physiology section of the cat article. Karel Adriaan (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

False information in this article?

In the taxonomy section, it says "The dog was classified as Canis familiaris,[23] which means "Dog-family"[24] or the family dog."

In context, this means that Linneaus meant "family dog" when he classified it as Canis familiaris.

There is reason to believe that this is false.

Points of fact:

1. Linneaus also classified the common treecreeper as familiaris.

2. Citation says that the Latin adjective "familaris" means not just "family" but also "familiar" (i.e.: "common" or "ordinary").

Reasoning:

Lineaus obviously meant "familiar, common treecreeper" when he named the common treecreeper familiaris?, not "family tree-creeper", so he ?meant "familiar dog", not "family dog".

This article should be edited in light of this.

I pause for comment before proceeding. Chrisrus (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us be clear about what the Oxford English Dictionary actually states - "Origin: Middle English (in the sense 'intimate', 'on a family footing'): from Old French familier, from Latin familiaris, from familia 'household servants, family', from famulus 'servant'." It looks fairly clear to me, Chris, a member of the family - nothing ordinary or common about the dog. I don't care much for treecreepers. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Which OED entry says that? Chrisrus (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The citation that is supplied, if one were to follow it through to the bottom of the page and the derivation of the word from the Latin. Additionally, if Linneaus wanted something to be called "common", he would have named it communis eg Panorpa communis. If he wanted something to be "ordinary", he would have named it ordinarius eg Conus ammiralis var. ordinarius. (If we are going to do some research Chris, then we need to research all of the possibilities.) But we are not here to debate what was going on in someone's head 250 years ago, we are looking at the meaning of the Latin word familiaris - I see the word family jump out straight away, as did the Latins. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked at several definitions yesterday and some of them also list familiaris as meaning "familiar" or "common" [1][2][3]. I too always thought it meant "common", but this might be a case of "it depends which book you read". DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Chrissy (who looked at other possibilities). Given that the Oxford Dictionary - maintained by Oxford University through its Oxford University Press - is the overseer of the English language, I suggest we stay with its derivation for the Latin word familiaris. William Harris • talk • 09:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Use Latin dictionaries for this, not English dictionaries. We want to know what it meant in Latin.

Chrissy is right; Latin dictionaries confirm that "familiaris" meant both "family" and "familiar".

Ask how to say "familiar" is said in Latin, and learn the answer is "familiaris". For example https://en.glosbe.com/en/la/familiar

Here is the conversation that led to this one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Question:_What_does_.22familiaris.22_mean.3F Chrisrus (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If you both believe that is the correct course of action, then feel free to amend the sentence to read "familiaris" means both "family" and "familiar". Right now regarding Canis familiaris, my undivided attention is on the approach of 1pm, Thursday 2 June 2016, US Eastern Standard Time. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

~jewish people dont HAVE to feed them before they eat its just preferable

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not sure how reliable the currently cited source is, but https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/animals.html says "In the Talmud, the rabbis further dictated that a person may not purchase an animal unless he has made provisions to feed it, and a person must feed his animals before he feeds himself. " Cannolis (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

In the Taxonomy section there is the following sentence: In 1978, a review aimed at reducing the number of recognized Canis species proposed that "Canis dingo is now generally regarded as a distinctive feral domestic dog.

More recent research continues to support Canis dingo as a separate species (e.g. Crowther et al 2014 An updated description of the Australian dingo (Canis dingo Meyer, 1793) Journal of Zoology 293(3): 192-203. Furthermore, research by Smith and Litchfield 2009 (A review of the relationship between indigenous Australians, dingoes (Canis dingo) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), Anthrozoös 22(2):111-129) suggests the dingo was never fully domesticated by indigenous Australians and therefore not considered a feral domestic dog.

I would like to propose that the above sentence be removed as it is ambiguous and inaccurate. Lvaneeden (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: That was the history that led to the Dingo and the Dog being classified as Canis lupus. It is not inaccurate because it is a direct quote from the cited reference. It is not ambiguous because based on your proposal above you knew exactly what it means. It is taxonomic history and therefore should not be removed. Wikipedia goes by the taxonomic classification contained within Mammal Species of the World edition 3 - rightly or wrongly - and not by the opinions of dissenting academics. Fan 2016 has recently conducted, for the first time, a whole-genome sequencing of wolves, dogs and dingoes and their finding was that they are all gray wolves and made the point of rebutting Crowther on genomic grounds. See further Evolution of the wolf#Domestic dog. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

May I edit the following article "dog" as written above-hand? Wikipediacontributer334 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Terminology - recent revert

Regarding the recent revert of my edit under the section on Terminology:

• You need to bear in mind that this is the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia and that this article is rated as B-Class on the quality scale and of Top importance.
• WP:BLUE is not a policy; it is an essay...
• ...which states that there is no need to cite common knowledge. If this section was common knowledge then there would be no reason for it to be included in the article. I put it to you that "An adult female capable of reproduction is a brood bitch, or brood mother" is not common knowledge, and that "A group of any three or more adults is a pack" requires citation - who says so?
• This section will need to meet WP:CITE else it will shortly be relocated to the "Dog breeding" article that is rated at Start class on its quality scale.

Regards,  William Harris |talk  10:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(re-edited for clarity and to remove unintended hostile language) I am well aware of the class of this article; I do not believe that is pertinent here, however, so will not address it further. WP:BLUE is not a policy, but it is a WP guideline. It clearly indicates there is no need to cite self-evident facts. In the context of this article, that means there is no need for a citation (which would be of a dictionary) for something so obvious as a term's definition. Furthermore, WP:CITE and related guidelines indicate authors should be cautious not to over-cite to the point it detracts from an article. (The counterargument--why self-evident facts need stated at all--is the one that's truly at issue here, I think.)

As for whether this section is needed...I argue that it is, as it is informative to a non-native speaker or to anyone who is interested in gender-specific (no, not breeding-specific) terminology. These terms are useful for non-native English speakers, which is within the scope of the English WP. I am not easily dissuaded that the Dog article is better off without key, common, Dog terminology. Furthermore, multiple similar articles have set precedence for a Terminology section. In short, I disagree with your stance and your desire to move this section, particularly since over half of it includes terms not limited to Dog Breeding, and because it does not clearly violate WP policy.

I apologize for the earlier rendering of my above comments. They were unintentionally hostile (allow me the conceit of blaming the flu virus I am currently battling!) I have rewritten them so they are in line with my intentions. Meanwhile...I believe WP policy agrees with me, as does precedence from similar articles. You clearly see WP policy differently. If a majority of authors agree with your change then I'll gladly concede, but I won't support unilateral changes when WP policy may not support them. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:English applies to the WP:Title only and not its content - we are discussing content. However, your proposal is agreeable. If no other editor provides an opinion within three days then I will revert my revert. Regards,  William Harris |talk  19:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the heading "Terminology". This is consistent with many other animal articles. It also allows for the insertion of other more general terminology which may be unrelated to breeding. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the primary issue, then, is whether the terms that ARE specific to breeding ("stud", "brood bitch", etc.) actually belong in a general Dog article? I'll concede they may be overly specialized for such an article. But then again, general domesticated mammal terminology does overlap heavily with breeding status (e.g. stallion vs gelding vs mare, or bull vs steer vs cow). Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it suggested that articles should be written so that an educated 14-yr-old can understand them. With this in mind, I suggest that all the terms remain. If there are some specific to breeding, this could be indicated as "XXXX is a term used in dog breeding to mean...". If the list becomes to large, we could create something like Glossary of equestrian terms. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chrissy, over the years I have learned to trust your judgement (on most things, anyway....). I shall make the change. Regards,  William Harris |talk  20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not watch this page, and have just noticed that my revert was already reverted by another editor despite me bringing this matter to the Talk page for discussion. I am a little disappointed. This is one of the reasons why the article "Dog", despite the dog being so dear to the English-speaking world, will never again reach the Good Article status that it once held. Regards,  William Harris |talk  20:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That was me, actually (if you're talking about this specific edit; I have not checked if any of your other edits were reverted). I reverted since policy is to leave a page in its unaltered state till consensus is reached on Talk. Now that we have reached consensus in favor of the original, I don't think further action is needed, but do urge User:William Harris to continue editing this page as it clearly would benefit! Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521193821/http://www.encyclocenter.com/Domestic-Pet-134.html to http://www.encyclocenter.com/Domestic-Pet-134.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202234138/http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Dog_Development to http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Dog_Development#Development_Overview
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pawsoflife.org/pdf/Library%20articles/Bradshaw%202009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005192843/http://www.russianspaceweb.com:80/sputnik2.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sputnik2.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

I would like to add more credited information to the site "Dogs." It shall be factual and precise, and I will add some additional pictures. Puppylulu (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate statement about the sense of magnetic field

I can't log in to edit, but someone please fix the duplicate mention of the Earth's magnetic field among dog senses: "The dog's senses include vision, hearing, sense of smell, sense of taste, touch and sensitivity to the earth's magnetic field. Another study suggested that dogs can see the earth's magnetic field.[43][44]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.169.84 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Spiked collar

My revision that explained the reason for a spiked collar in the section "Competitors" (really, animals with the potential of preying on dogs, was reverted for lack of a source.

Here it was:

"The spiked collar common on dogs is no mere ornament: it originated as a protection of the vulnerable neck of a dog from wolves, but also protects dogs from attacks by other dogs."

(Most animals, including dogs, preying on quadrupeds attack the neck which contains the carotid artery, the jugular vein, the spinal cord, and the upper windpipe with the intent of causing suffocation, paralysis, or quickly-fatal bleeding.

I found a source:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-dog-collars-have-spikes.

I am replacing the material and adding the source.

The spiked collar common on dogs is no mere ornament: it originated as a protection of the vulnerable neck of a dog from wolves, but also protects dogs from attacks by other dogs.Pbrower2a (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

False Information II

How is the dog the most abundant carnivore? There are many, many more abundant carnivores. This is a ridiculous statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.246.150 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: Thanks for doing this. My revert of your deletion was based on the fact that deleting another editor's post (whether or not they know how to thread) is against WP:TPO guidelines - you could be sanctioned for it. The best way to move forward here is address the concern using RS. So, we should be looking at RS telling us about the abundance of carnivores. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Dogs' eyes

I just wanted to add some fairly technical information about dogs' eyes since they are quite unusual (featuring a strange cup-shaped macula as well as a tapetum lucidum) and was wondering about the best place to put that in the article as I was loathe to start a whole new section for it. I also have a quite extraordinary retinal image to go with the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinum opus (talk • contribs) 11:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Diet

The diet section suggests dogs should avoid an all-meat diet since it is low in iron and calcium. This is backwards; it is the meatless diet that suffers this shortcoming. This was changed some time ago and was probably vandalism 07:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)