Talk:Dog

Archives
October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – January 2008 January 2008 – January 2009

Early Spaying

On another note,does anyone have any good scientific studies supporting spaying female dogs prior to the first estrus cycle to prevent the mammary gland from being stimulating by hormones and therefore also prevent breast cancer. I have heard vets and read many things over the internet, but never have seen any definitive study. Can anyone help.

I think whether "bitch" has been losing favor depends a great deal on one's experiences. As I mentioned below, the vast majority of people I know use the term freely; others obviously have different experiences.

At any rate, I actually wanted to address your question about ovariohysterectomy (spay) preventing mammary tumors. The study everyone references was done in 1969 - here is the citation:

Schneider, R, Dorn, CR, Taylor, DON. Factors Influencing Canine Mammary Cancer Development and Postsurgical Survival. J Natl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969

That study showed that the fewer estrus cycles a bitch had before she was sterilized, the lower her risk of mammary tumors. There are a couple of papers which review the medical literature on sterilization and long-term health effects (both are .pdf files):

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665

Hope that helps! Newcastle (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

the article currently reads "In fact, there is evidence that spaying females prior to their first heat cycle." and then drops the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.191.62 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to find consensus and apply a consistent standard

The term bitch is no more correct for a female canine (not canid) than the term female. The definition of bitch is "a female dog." Thus, Female is the superordinate term, and in the context of canines, bitch provides no further information. Under wikipedia guidelines, editors should refrain from making arbitrary edits. If there is no substantive justification for including "bitch" instead of "female", then female should not be edited. "Bitch" could be edited to "female" if there is sufficient reason for the change. I'll provide three reasons:

• The term bitch is not in wide use; it is not common language. Most dog owners do not refer to their dog as a bitch.
• The term is not used in scientific publications; female is used instead. My knowledge is limited to scientific pubs on wolves; I've never seen it there.
• The term is more commonly used as a derogatory term. From my perspective, the use of this term to mean "a female dog" is all but dead. It is used in a few pockets, including the dog show community and the breeding community, but in the common language of average people, this meaning is almost never used.
• Wikipedia would benefit from consistency, and "bitch" will struggle to find majority support

I propose creating a standard from consensus that will help resolve future edit wars about the proper usage of the term. To achieve this, I propose changing instances of bitch to female with a link to this debate; that will encourage people who are interested in the topic to come here and help form a consensus. Hopefully we can come to a consensus, and then use that standard for future edits of all dog pages.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You are not interested in a consensus, you are an edit warrior: "To achieve this, I am going to change all the instances of bitch to female with a link to this debate."

This appears to me to be about censorship: "The term is more commonly used as a derogatory term". You do not explicitly object to "dog" for a male, and you have not stated that you will change it. I haven't checked your contributions to see whether you object to mare, gander, hen, or woman. You claim that "bitch" does not have the same usage that "female" has even among dogs, but the dog fancier literature is replete with counterexamples.

If you were here arguing for consistency in all articles about sexes of animals, I might be willing to engage. But Wikipedia is not censored, and your attempt to push censorship under a guise of consistency does not engender my cooperation. If another editor would like to seek a consensus, rather than censoring and edit-warring, I'd be happy to engage.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, relax. This issue isn't new. I didn't make it up. It pops up every now and then because the wikipedia community has not put it to bed. This week there was a edit war on the Doberman Pinscher site. I didn't play any role in it. Currently "bitch" is being used, and I have no interest in challenging its usage there. I do have interest in bringing that debate toto a central location where it can be resolved. The statement above about changing instances of bitch to female is to encourage debate. Edits are never final; they just force someone else to disagree, and if they do, thats one more person in the debate. If you would like to bring the debate to the multitude of wiki articles through some other means, thats fine.

Lastly, because you guys have accused me of many things, let me say that I have no vested interest. And yes, I am interested in gathering consensus. If it turns out that bitch is used more often than female here, and that the consensus is that it is the correct term to use, I would be happy with consistency dictating that the term bitch replace female on these pages. Then edit wars about this topic will end, because there will be a concrete statement of the consensus which is all-important in justifying these changes.

One of the principles of wikipedia: assume that your fellow editors are acting in good faith. Please don't engage in ad hominem. The only substantive argument above is the statement that "bitch" is common in the dog fancier literature.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of assuming good faith is reading what the editor wrote, not what you think they wrote. I interpreted your statements to mean that you would change "bitch" to "female" absent a consensus, that you were concerned by the derogatory use of the word, and that you were unconcerned by other species-specific sex terms, even including "dog". I apologize if I misconstrued, but I hope you can understand how my reading of what you wrote (perhaps in contrast to what you meant) would lead me to the conclusions I drew.

With respect to "This week there was a edit war on the Doberman Pinscher site," that seems to be a bit overblown. An anon changed "dog" and "bitch" to "male" and "female", with no edit summary. I reverted, with an edit summary. I have made many such reversions in the past. To the best of my memory, no similar change by an anon has ever had an edit summary, and my good-faith assumption has been that these anons were not aware of the proper uses of the terms and were shocked by "bitch".

My edit was reverted by ImperatorExercitus, a user whose primary contributions recently have been reversions of vandalism. I suppose that reversion of an edit by a named account, with an edit summary, to the edit of an anon, without one, could be construed as edit warring, but I'm willing to assume good faith. Pigsonthewing reverted back, with an edit summary.

IMO, because the terms "dog" and "bitch" are widely used in the dog fancier literature, and among all dog fanciers (not just breeders), it is useful to readers of Wikipedia to use the terms correctly. But I understand the value of consistency. If this were a discussion of all species-specific sex terms, rather than a referendum on "bitch", I'd feel a lot better about it (although this is probably not the right venue...I hesitate to suggest MOS). And "bitch" isn't the only one with an eyebrow-raising alternate meaning; there's also cock.

I'd also feel a lot better about this if there were more than just the two of us talking here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit late, but I agree with Curtis Clark. The word "bitch" is entirely appropriate in reference to a female dog, and should be used interchangeably in Wiki articles just as it is in real life, among fanciers, owners, exhibitors, breeders, etc. As CC also pointed out, if you're truly after consistency you'd need to change every gender-specific use of "dog" to male, and change all uses of (among numerous other things) mare, stallion, bull, cow, sow, ewe, hen, rooster, to "male" or "female", as the case may be. If you propose that, and get consensus on it, I'd agree to remove "bitch" from the Boxer article; until that point, I see no reason at all to change things.

Newcastle (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not late. As long as people throw in their opinions here over the next months or years, consensus will eventually be found.

The insistence that in order to be consistent, we would have to change all uses of dog to male really supports my point. On wikipedia, dog is not used in the technical sense that indicates gender. Dog is the common use English term used to specify members of the species canis lupus familiaris regardless of sex. Just look at the dog article. Where is the term dog being used in a gender specific fashion? I am arguing that common-use words be used except in cases where the technical usage of dog and bitch would be more appropriate (e.g., when discussing breeding or showing). Each of the terms you used above are in common usage. Can you really argue that bitch is in common use? What percentage of dog owners do you know that use the term (without implying the derogatory meaning) to refer to their own dog? Personally, I know no one who uses it. --Thesoxlost (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another place where it is commonly used is in breed standards, and in fact there are few other reasons to distinguish the sexes in articles on specific breeds (one exception is temperament). Most of the "dog people" I know use "bitch" in a non-derogatory sense to refer to their own bitches. Admittedly the percentage is much lower among dog owners who are not "dog people", and I suspect the use of "bitch" in the classical sense is an example of a sociolect.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dog" certainly is used on Wikipedia to indicate gender. In the Boxer article, for example, it is used in the "Early Genealogy" section. Other articles (from your list above) with gender-indicating "dog" usage include Best of Breed, German Spitz (Klein), Curly Coated Retriever, Border Collie, American Cocker Spaniel, Polish Lowland Sheepdog, Irish Terrier (I didn't check the ones specifically about breeding/reproduction) - and in fact, the Dog article specifically points out that a male canine is referred to as a "dog".

And yes, I would argue that "bitch" in reference to a female dog is in common use - 90% of the dog owners I know use it interchangeably with "female" or "girl", as do the breeders, exhibitors, veterinarians, groomers. (Since I'm involved in numerous international dog forums, I'm speaking of worldwide use, not just in my local area.)

At any rate, until others weigh in I guess we're at two to one against. Is there a guideline as to how long these discussions remain open without input before consensus is declared? (And at that point do you go back and replace all the instances of "bitch" that you changed to "female" before this discussion occurred?)

Newcastle (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article Dog, the title is used to refer to the species of both genders. In one sentence, in the definition section, it states that in breeding circles, the term is also used to indicate a male. But for every article title that includes the word dog (e.g., Dog, Dog breed, dog communication, dog society, Dog fancy), and a vast majority of the instances of the term on wikipedia, the term is used in the colloquial sense to refer to the subspecies. I understand that in maybe 2% of its usage, it is gender specific. In a majority of those cases, it is used in the context of breeding or dog shows. Elsewhere, where normal people--Joe and Joe Sixpack--who own dogs but dont breed them and don't show them, the term is rarely used.

If you truly believe that 90% of dog owners use bitch in commonly, in everyday speech, to refer to their own dogs, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I have never, ever, heard someone say "This is my bitch, Daisy. Isn't she a beautiful bitch?" Never. People always say "This is my dog, Daisy," or if you say "He's a beautiful dog," i've never heard someone say, "She's a bitch." They say "It's a she," or just correct you with "She." If 90% of the people you know do say things like that, well, we have very, very different experiences.

I don't know of any wiki guidelines. Nothing is happening in the meantime. I aggravated two pro-bitch people by changing the pages. If people care, they will share their opinion. As is, if anyone changes a use of "bitch" to "female," I think you could revert it and point to this page. I think this thread is a reasonable one to use as the standard for all dog-related pages that could use the term.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do have very, very different experiences. :) I just can't think of any reason to not use the term on Wiki in reference to a female dog. Your reasons don't hold true for me, obviously: you say it's not in common usage, but in my experience it is; you say it's not used in scientific publications on wolves, and that may well be true, but a quick search of PubMed shows almost 1,000 published studies which use the term, from 1906 all the way up to a January, 2009 journal; you say the word is often used in a derogatory manner but so are numerous others, and again in my experience it is not commonly an insult; you mention consistency as a reason to stop using the word but then state that you have no problem with it being used in reference to breeding or showing (which is primarily how it's used in articles at this point anyway) which destroys the consistency aspect.

Sorry, I don't mean to harp on about this, I'm just trying to understand your point of view and hopefully help you understand mine.

Newcastle (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "bitch" is context specific, like all words. If you are talking about a machine you can't get to work, or something else that has annoyed you, or if you are talking about a person it has the derogatory meaning. If you are talking about a dog, it doesn't. Of course the word "dog" needs to be used with because it is more difficult to differentiate the two most common meanings. In my experience (I am not a "dog person") the word "bitch" is fairly common with this meaning and I don't think it will confuse people, especially when it explained. "Female" is also common, but the most common term would be "girl" - the diminutive is not surprising when talking about well loved animals, but is not really suitable in an encyclopedia. Note that donkey uses Jack and Jenny_(donkey) quite freely despite these being rather unknown words. Thehalfone (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we know a couple things from social and cognitive psychology: (1) if a word has two alternative meanings, we process both meanings simultaneously; (2) if that meaning is associated with a trait (say a negative or hostile trait), it automatically colors our perception. See http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1983-07893-001

Its just one of many, but this study shows that subconscious priming of hostility causes subjects to rate behaviors and people as more hostile. In this context, the negative traits associated with the dominant (derogatory) use of the word "bitch" will bias our perception of female dogs. Similarly, the use of the word niggardly activates more meanings than "stingy" that one would be wise to avoid.

Also, those who complained about censorship, read WP:profanity.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...and "dog" has no negative connotations?

My perception is colored when I see "female" used in a summary of a breed standard for dogs: I assume it has been sanitized, and that there is no assurance that it accurately represents the original document in any respect. Note that this is my perception; in many cases, I would find it hard to get evidence to back it up.

To call the use of "bitch" in a dog article, especially when used in reference to a breed standard, and most especially when the breed standard uses the word, profanity cannot be seen as anything but censorship.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Push for GA status

This article is pretty close to being ready for nomination for GA standing. There are few more issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps interested editors could post new issues or try to fix them. Here is an initial list, put together in a peer review by Dana Boomer, and greatly modified by thesoxlost:

Pending

• tags: Spaying & Neutering
• Make sure that all of your web references have publishers and last access dates. Also, please make sure that you are actually using the publisher, and not the work. For example, with current ref #41 (The Case for Tail Docking), the publisher should be Council of Docked Breeds, not cdb.org.

Partially Addressed (possibly resolved)

• The article is a bit bloated. It should be shortened in places; some relatively trivial sections could be deleted.
• Referencing greatly improve. Still could use a little work: Disorders & Diseases; Dangerous Substances; Overpopulation; Dog communication
• There are a lot of short sections in the article. For as many of these as possible, please either expand them or combine them with other sections.

Resolved

• There are several sections in the article (Working, utility and assistance dogs, Show and sport (competition) dogs, Dangerous substances) that are composed almost completely of lists. MOS discourages lists in articles, so these should be turned into prose as much as possible.
• Please make sure that the discussion regarding naming is completed and the decision is finalized with consensus one way or the other before you nominate for GA status.
• There are two citation banners in the article, both for lack of inline citations, and both were placed there several months ago.
• There shouldn't be external links in the body of the article as there are at the end of the Ancestry and history of domestication section. Instead, these should be turned into references, moved to the external links section, or removed altogether.
• References that are in English do not need to be marked as such. References that are in any language other than English do need to be marked.
• Current ref #70 (Wolf at my door) deadlinks.
• The Australian National Kennel Club external link deadlinks

--Thesoxlost (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict between Dog and Gray Wolf articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf

The Dog article says that the Domestic Dog is a subspecies of the Gray Wolf. That is to say, the Gray Wolf is a species with several subspecies, of which the Domestic Dog is but one. The Domestic Dog, then, is a subset of Gray Wolf. All Domestic Dogs are Gray Wolves, but not all Gray Wolves are Domestic Dogs. (Forgive my caps, which I have included for clarity.)

The Gray Wolf article states in one place that the Domestic Dog shares ancestry with the Gray Wolf. Elsewhere, it states that the Gray Wolf is an ancestor to the Domestic Dog.

The ideas presented in the two articles are not, under close analysis, compatible. If the set A is ancestral to the set B, then the set A cannot also include the set B.

I think we need to pick a winner on this one, and stick with it.

Ordinary Person (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ordinary, I responded over at Talk:Gray Wolf. These statements are not contradictory. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I came across a google book also addressing the ancestry, which came up with cladistic analysis that described the wolf as a special type of dog as well as some species of jackal. The reference to the book I put in with brain size. James Serpel, The Domestic Dog.

It is stated there that coyotes. jackal,african wild dog, dog breeds and wolfes cannot be considered true species. The cladistic trees are quite complicated and surprising.Viridiflavus (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Diet

The "footnote" used to "backup" the notion that "dogs are Omnivores" is BOGUS! A quick check of the link tells you it is Non-Scientific information written by and for students. That's It. It is NOT a reflection of any sort of scientific thinking or research.

It's just a general "thought" of the person who wrote it. There is even a "disclaimer" at the bottom of the article the footnote references to make sure a reader knows that it is "written for and by students without any claims of accuracy."

The use of this as a "footnote" boggles the mind.

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who noticed the absurd assertion in the article that dogs are omnivores.

The absurd thing is that Wikipedia normally observant and quick to catch nonsense like this, has completely missed how the concept of the "footnote" to "verify" a fact has been royally abused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolorious (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More published proof that dogs are carnivores, not omnivores:
As you look into your dog's mouth, notice those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp teeth). These are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar. Hence, dogs do not chew, they are designed to bite, rip, shred, scissor/crush and swallow.

However much, we humans have done to tinker with and change the dog's body design (resulting in varying sizes and conformations), we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines. "Dogs have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore" (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to requiring longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). Some educated People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be pre-processed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a highly questionable practice.

"Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down process of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. The carnivore's pancreas does not secrete cellulase to split the cellulose into glucose molecules, nor have dogs become efficient at digesting and assimilating and utilizing plant material as a source of high quality protein. Herbivores do those sorts of things" Canine and Feline Nutrition Case, Carey and Hirakawa Published by Mosby, 1995

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation). Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA ( Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). br>This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html). "The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."

Dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?"(www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.).

References: Prof. Dr. Sir John Whitman Ray B.A., ND., D.Sc., NMD., CT. MT.. CI, Cert. Pers., PhD., B.C Dip N, MD. (M.A.), Dr. Ac, FFIM., Dp. IM., F.WA I .M., RM., B.E.I.N.Z., S.N.T.R., N Z. Char. NMP, N P A Dr. Francis M. Pottenger Jr. MD Dr. Kouchakoff of Switzerland Dr. Weston A. Price Dr Tom Lonsdale Carissa Kuehn

Dr. Dr Jeanette Thomason http://www.thewholedog.org/artcarnivores.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.176.5 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It´s classified like a carnivore but is a omnivore... ??? what kind of affirmation is that?

Although there are reported cases (...) of carnivores eating plants, the classification refers to the adaptations and main food source of the species in general so these exceptions do not make either individual animals nor the species as a whole omnivores.

‘Have you ever seen a dog attack a wheat field?’

Professor David Kronfeld

Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pág 258 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdónMorales (talk • contribs) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdónMorales (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC) 

The article mentions milk as a sourse of proteins for dogs. But my vet told me that dogs cannot digest milk (We use buffalo milk) and should be given meat or eggs (I have a lab female)?--Nikhil Sanjay Bapat (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dogs are actually omnivores. Even though most of them probably do eat more meat than plants if they can help it and may prefer meat, they still do eat plants. Saying that they are carnivores is like saying that people are herbivores simply because most people eat more plants than meat. The truth is dogs do rely on plants for proper nutrition as well as on meat. I have dogs of my own and I know for a fact that they love several types of plants: they snatch carrots every chance they get, adore celery, and like to eat the wild grasses they find in their yard, to name a few. That is one reason why most, if not all, commercial dog foods include vegetables and at least one type of grain, but have more meat than other ingredients, as healthy wild dogs would eat a lot of meat as well. And about the milk: I think dogs are meant to generally be lactose intolerant, so it probably should be avoided unless your veterinarian says otherwise. Zonafur (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Zonafur

^ You're 100% wrong in your assumption. Just because a dog is opportunistic, absolutely does NOT mean it has a nutritional need for plant matter. My dog eats cat poop. Does that mean she has a nutritional need for cat poop? Should you be feeding your dog cat poop?! Of course not. By your logic, my dog must be a catpoopivore!

When's the last time you ate something you don't have a nutritional need for? Yesterday, I ate a piece of cheesy garlic bread. It may have contained some iron and some calcium an a few other vitamins and minerals, but I'm sure I could've gotten those nutrients and calories by eating a much healthier option. On top of that, I have the ability to digest what I ate (well, for the most part) -- dogs do not have a the ability (they're lacking enzymes and a proper digestive tract) to digest whole veggies. If you feed a dog a whole carrot and he swallows it whole, it'll come out whole. And if you're feeding your dog pureed veggies for vitamins and minerals, well guess what, those same vitamins and minerals can be found in meat, bone, and organ which dogs can digest much more efficiently. So, WHY would you intentionally feed them veggies for nutritional reasons when you know 1. they're not going to get anything out of it and 2. there are much more species-appropriate options available?

And, of course most commercial dog foods contain veggies and grains (take note that higher "quality" kibbles do not contain grains) -- they're cheaper than meat, afterall, and *industry* is built on *profit margins*! The pet food industry exists to line the pockets of the people in the industry. Naive and ignorant consumers (and many veterinarians) have been completely brainwashed. One more thing, did you know that your veterinarian most likely receives incentives and kickbacks for pushing certain brands (think how many vet offices you've seen pushing Hill's. And then think about what a horrible quality "food" Hill's is proven to be).

Additionally, I find it very intriguing that this same debate doesn't exist for wolves. That fact in itself really speaks to the fact that dogs are carnivores. Do you realize wolves are also opportunistic feeders? Wolves eat berries and carrots, too! With wolves, like dogs, the fruits & veggies come out just as undigested as they went in. Why aren't wolves classified as omnivores? The diet of a wolf and a wild dog is *identical*. As is quite common, you are confusing preferred tastes/diets to anatomical definitions, which are generally an indication of best and healthiest diets (not preferred tastes).

Weewoah333 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... a bit of googling turned up this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try reading Carnivora. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutering

The passage on neutering previously read:

It is not necessary for a female dog to either experience a heat cycle or have puppies before spaying, and likewise, a male dog does not need the experience of mating before castration. In fact, there is evidence that spaying females prior to their first heat cycle influents the animal development differently that after the animal reaches sexual maturity. Female cats and dogs may be more likely to develop certain reproduction organs deseases, mostly breeding-specific, such as Canine_venereal_sarcoma, Brucellosis etc, if they are not spayed before their first heat cycle. Also, fertile dogs have higher chances to develop some forms of cancer, affecting mammary glands, ovaries and other reproduction organs (author=Morrison, Wallace B.|title=Cancer in Dogs and Cats (1st ed.)|publisher=Williams and Wilkins|year=1998|isbn=0-683-06105-4). However, spaying or neutering very young animals, also known as early-age spay, can result in increased health concerns later on in life...

I deleted the part in bold, because it's confusing and I can't work out what side it's arguing ("In fact, there is evidence that spaying females prior to their first heat cycle influents the animal development differently that after the animal reaches sexual maturity"?). According to the RSPCA (http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/Page/RSPCAContentTemplate&cid=1152286830457&articleId=1152286835649) and other reliable sources, it is a myth that either a female or male dog will have health problems if neutered before mating. If the part I deleted is an example of a credible opposition argument, or otherwise, then by all means put it back, but please make it coherent. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, section is looking rather better now. Thanks. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Still, somewhat confusing and has a few same looking statements. We may a bit re-plan it by sorting early spay, health "pros", health "cons" and behavior changes per se, a subject per paragraph?--Afru (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did a rather ruthless edit, trying to keep pros and cons to their respective paragraphs, as suggested. Hopefully everything is really clear now. I hope I got all the references in the right place and understood them correctly. If I didn't, please fix it. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote that was trying to explain the reduced risk of Mammary tumors. "dogs spayed before their first heat have 0.5 percent the risk of intact female dogs, and dogs spayed after just one heat cycle have 8 percent the risk."

I don't know if the recent edits and rearrangements caused this but, ref 79 does not back up the point about health concerns latter in life. 80 is a breed specific study and compares neutering at 6 months, not related to early neuter. But the point about hip dysplasia can be cited to 79, although 81 indicates no association with any musculoskeletal problems. 81 does not mention anything about female risk of incontinence, that is 79. And 79 recommends at least 3 months, not 6.--Dodo bird (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original section on early spay increasing risks in both sexes, and included WP:RS that specifically support the statements that (1) females have increased risk of urinary incontinence as a result of early spay; and (2) that early spay affects developmental hormones which result in both males and females growing larger than dogs that were neutered at 6 months or not at all. This increases the risk of hip dysplasia.

Yes, it is a myth that dogs gain any medical benefit from going through a heat cycle before being spayed/neutered. But it is not a myth that early spaying (e.g., spaying at 8 weeks) does have long term health consequences. This is relevant because it is becoming an increasingly common practice at shelters to spay/neuter all animals that are placed in homes, regardless of their age.

In the meantime, the section has been serially butchered until the claims became ambiguous and poorly referenced; editors change one word at a time, leading to contraversies that resulting in wholesale deletion of claims--throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please don't simply delete the section; look over its history and try to recover the valid statements and associated WP:RS. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I would rather the section be fixed than removed, which is why i left a message here. But it's been almost a month and no one(including me) was willing to try to fix it. Removal is what I'm willing to do at this point.

There is too much weight given to the downside of early spay neuter given that most studies conclude that it is safe or that there are more benefits than risks. (1) is true but (2) is less clear. The Spain study reports increased risk of hip dysplasia but say they are of a less severe form. It also shows no increased risk of arthritis(which is important given its association with hip dysplasia) and long bone fracture. The Howe study showed no correlation between age of neutering and musculoskeletal problems. --Dodo bird (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Interbreeding Dog Breeds

Maybe a stupid question, but can dog breeds as disparate as, say, a Saint Bernard and a Jack Russell Terrier produce offspring? If they can't, does that not make them different species? Thanks 69.134.33.93 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They can interbreed. If the cross is the wrong way around, the pregnancy will probably kill the mother before she can give birth, though. However, note also that being able to interbreed isn't really the defining factor for a species - horses and donkeys can interbreed to produce mules and lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers, but they're all considered distinct species. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Being able to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring was the traditional definition of a species. It is very rare that a mule or liger is fertile. Dog crosses are always fertile. Nevertheless, this definition isn't very helpful and these days scientists try to avoid it. Speciation is a gradual process. There will always be a grey area while the gene flow between two populations is very low and they are slowly diverging. Species is just a term of convinience, based on many factors. Dogs are a relatively unambigous case - definitely one species. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an unambiguous case because size is a continuously distributed feature without any categorical distinction across breeds. If environmental barriers were removed, the extreme features of all breeds (e.g., very large or very small size) would regress towards the mean (or some point of equilibrium). Many individual dogs would not be able to mate with others (e.g., your St. Bernard and Jack Russell), but their offspring would be able to. Their genetic material would merge relatively quickly.

I like the strange case of the French Bulldog, which has been bred for such ridiculous characteristics that the males don't have the strength to mount the females; they have to be artificially inseminated. If environmental barriers were removed, this breed would be in the comical position of only being able to mate with other breeds, and even then only the females. The breed would disappear in a generation. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If environmental barriers were removed, the extreme features of all breeds (e.g., very large or very small size) would regress towards the mean (or some point of equilibrium). Which is exactly what one sees with feral dogs, of course. Barnabypage (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh. If you want to be picky about it, there are still plenty of examples of "different species" that can interbreed and have offspring that aren't sterile. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes; house cats and certain species of wild cats (ocelots and Leopard Cats, for instance); horses and zebras, many species of birds... point is, what a "species" is isn't always all that clear-cut. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that taxonomic categories don't always cleave nature at its joints? --Thesoxlost (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The alternative would seem to be that taxonomic categories are infallibly correct... which seems unlikely. :) Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

... if the Pope can be, then why not? --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Something on that matter, that might be helpful, not only does the offspring of two beings must be fertile also the offspring of this must be fertile and in general in good health. An example to clarify: here in Germany there were once breeding experiments where they crossed the following canids: poodle/wolf, poodle/coyote, dwarven poodle/golden jackal. The hybrids were left to interbreeed with each other (so the wolf-dogs among each other, the coy-dogs among each other and so on). Well, all showed a wide variability from the second hybrid generation onward; however, there were a few notable differences: no matter how they looked the wolf-dogs never had communication problems so signififcant that it would permanently disrupt the group (there were of course problems because some wolf-dogs simply had to much hair), also they could produce viable fertile and healthy offspring down to the third hybrid generation (the experiment was stopped at that time), further more even the wolves and poodles interbred when left by themselves. This was not the case for the coy-dogs and jackal-dogs, there, signififcant communication problems occured and the hybrids occasionally had to give certain signals completely different meanings more than once, also in the third hybrid generation, their fertility significantly decreased and the number of genetical health problems increased. Furthermore the jackals, coyotes and poodles avoided the other species when left for themselves and no voluntary interbreeding occured. And just as an easter egg: the poodles were always the dominant ones ;)--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

aggression in spayed animals

I seriously question this finding. The only place it has been reported is in a lecture at a conference, and the only record are the slides from that talk. There is no discussion of the evidence, no presentation of the results, no explanation of the methods, no operational definitions provided, no opportunity for peer reviewed, and no context provided (e.g., the author saying "these data are preliminary", or "For breed X only"). Furthermore, it hasn't appeared in a scientific journal since it was presented in 2006, which raises serious questions about its validity. This source does not strike me as WP:RS. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced by dealing with a few cases of abrupt negative behavior changes in dogs after neutering, and the symposium materials provide the statistics that about match real life experience (IMHO). The reference in the article is a link to a document containing a fairly simple explanation in a plain language. This is a link to the study, scientific methods development etc, referenced in the presentation materials: http://research.vet.upenn.edu/Portals/36/media/HsuSerpellJAVMA2003.pdf The results.... just look around (sigh) --Afru (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That study you just referenced does not conclude that there are differences between neutered and non-neutered dogs; in fact, it states explicitly that there were many differences between neutered and non-neutered dogs in the study, such as breeding, that are thought to influence aggression. This happens all the time: a grad student gives a presentation, using data from their lab that have not been peer reviewed. Its a "look what we've been up to; isn't it cool?" type of talk. But then the topic never makes it to publication. Why? Because it couldn't pass peer review. The study you referenced could not have passed peer-review if it made the claim that neutered dogs are more aggressive than non-neutered dogs because there were too many uncontrolled variables in a correlational design; if they had manipulated a variable, they would be in a place to make such a claim. I'll email the author of the powerpoint presentation; I'm confident she will say that there were confounds that precluded them from drawing any conclusions.--Thesoxlost (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence that certain types of aggression are increased with sterilization for some dogs. There's a well-referenced article on the subject here: http://users.lavalink.com.au/theos/Spay-neuter.htm#behav Newcastle (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Newcastle. That is pretty mixed evidence. It looks like the evidence is pretty unanimous that it decreases aggression in males, whereas different studies show different results in females. The main finding from the link you provided related to spaying in females is a survey, which again cannot control for many other factors that could so easily lead to erroneous conclusions. I'll look closer at the individual references. But given that it is a controversial topic, and not all studies are in agreement, could we remove the statement until it is resolved in discussion? If we find that the evidence is overwhelmingly that spaying increases aggression, I won't oppose its inclusion with better references. If its mixed, I won't oppose a more conservative statement with references to both sides. But as is, its claimed as fact and the reference doesn't support that. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not instead mention both sides, since the rest of the section talks about the pros and cons - "There is evidence that some types of aggression may be increased by sterilization, while other types may be decreased. These effects are not universal among all dogs, however." (That's a little rough, but you get the idea.) Newcastle (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good compromise. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Completed items edit refresh

 

• Refs should be outside of punctuation,[1] not inside [2]. hi people*Please look over WP:OVERLINK, there are multiple examples of linking consecutive words and linking irrelevent words (really, what use is linking to Germanic language and color in an article on dogs?). also links to common forms of measurement should be avoided (centimeter?).
• Taxonomy and evolution should be at the beginning of the article, right after Etymology - don't these two seem to relate?
  • Done Coaster1983 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Disorders and diseases" begins with two paragraphs that both discuss genetic diseases and then diseases that are also found in humans - anthropocentrism aside, this is very redundant (hip dysplasia is mentioned twice), and the paragraphs need to be merged/reworded.
• WP:OVERLINK (from above)
• Only the first word in a Section header is capitalized unles it's a quote or proper name
• you need to be consistent with serial commas
• citations do not[1] belong in the middle of sentences,[2] you need to move them to the proceeding punctuation.[3]
• WP:ITALICS there is almost never a need to "quote" something and italicize it in an article, additionally italics have very specific uses. review the guideline and make the needed fixes.
• MOS:ABBR ASPCA should be written out, and the later term SPCAs probably should be also.
• WP:MOSBOLD do a quick Ctrl+F for bold text, it should only be in the lead and for definition lists.
• When discussing terms - they are italicized, not "quoted". e.g. "Median longevity" is wrong
• Avoid the use of: amongst
• The Health section (and subsections) has an anthropocentric tone that needs to be removed. Some comparisons (like with hearing or visual acuity) are useful, others are not (like we both get cancer). This also applies to "Development".
• Besides the "Taxonomy and evolution" section noted in 1A, the "Nutrition" section seems to have some goal of promoting a vegetarian diet for dogs - this is more pronounced with the missing citations. Additionally, I'm not too fond of the source used to discuss specifics on nutrition because it makes claims like meat lacks iron - which is used to support the sentence, "All-meat diets may not be recommended for dogs as they lack vital components of a healthy diet."
• "There is conclusive evidence that dogs genetically diverged from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago. however most believe domestication to have occurred much earlier. The evidence comes from two primary sources: mtDNA studies and archaeological findings, neither of which are conclusive." Bad punctuation aside, this needs to be reworded so the different evidence is more explicit.
• "...dogs are likely descended from a handful of domestication events including a small number of founding females..." are founding females really a domestication "event"?
• "...native to America..." North or South?
• "...the location of maximal genetic divergence, and assumes that hybridization does not occur, and that breeds remain geographically localized." you only need one and.
• "...dogs generally share attributes with their wild ancestors, the wolves. Dogs are predators and scavengers, possessing sharp teeth and strong jaws.... Although selective breeding has changed the appearance of many breeds, all dogs retain basic traits from their distant ancestors." Empasized text is redundant.
• "Although most breeds are memmetropic, one out of two Rottweilers have been found to be myopic." Why are we picking out Rotties? Because they are an exception? Then say this to provide context (like with bloodhounds, and French Bulldogs)
• "In some breeds, the tail is traditionally docked to avoid injuries (especially for hunting dogs). It can happen that some puppies are born with a short tail or no tail in some breeds. This occurs more frequently for certain breeds, especially those breeds that are frequently docked and thus have no breed standard regarding the tail." These sentences have multiple issues with redundancy and flow - they need to be reworked.
• "Some breeds of dogs are also prone..." What else were some breeds of dog said to be prone to? Remove also.
• "...owners of dogs which may be at risk should learn about such conditions as part of good animal care." Instructional - remove
• "As the breed standard has only to do with the externally observable qualities ...." This is a very long complicated sentence. Consider rephrasing or breaking it down.
• "Dogs tend to be poorer than wolves and coyotes at observational learning..." This contradicts the earlier prose in the "Intelligence" section, stating that an experiment found dogs to perform better at observational learning.

Reviewing article. This is a large and intense topic, so please have patience. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cursory review

I've requested CitationBot to look over the article and make edits. Skimming over this article, there are a few concerns that should be addressed.

1. The first ref should go, as a source for whether this is a distinct subspecies (which might be controversial) find the Linneaus source alluded to in the taxobox.
2. Review WP:LEAD. The current lead is not reflective of the length of the article, nor a proper summation - for something so long i would expect about three paragraphs, and given the variety of sections there should be more information in here.
3. Remove the lead ref about coat types - unless this is such a controversial or extraordinary claim that it sparked a discussion to require it. (the other two refs are fine)
4. I would also suggest Differences from wolves be moved to become the third section - if there was dicussion to have it placed at the end, i'll defer.
5. There are problems with tone. specifically, articles need to avoid words like should as this can be interpreted as instructional. Sections with instructional tones and prose include: Disorders and diseases, Diet, Taxonomy and evolution (see next paragraph). Additionally what is going on in the refs that are offering two links (one is cheaper, should you buy)?

   The phrase in Taxonomy and evolution, "As noted above, care should be taken when considering the genetic evidence for the origins of dogs and dog breeds." is self-referencial and instructional - if there is controversy about the genetic evidence for breed origins, state that, provide examples, and then move on.

6. I do not believe there is a strong reason to have a section like Dangerous substances. We really need a section stating that alcohol, bleach, and detergent are dangerous if consumed? you could put a section like this on almost any animal's article. I doubt the encyclopedic worth of this information and would prefer it either removed or trimmed down to noteworthy specifics like chocolate and antifreeze (both of which regularly recieve mainstream attention) - i'm sure you can use a ref to point to a site with a list of "things to keep away from your pet" but wikipedia shouldn't be that list.
7. duplicate refs,[1][5][6][7] like this, should be avoided except for highly controversial claims or prose which combines facts from several sources. In neccessary cases, they should go in numerical order (take a look at Mortality for an example).
8. go over formatting with a fine-tooth comb - syntax like, "...years ago[91],[92][29]" and "...years.[93]). [no opening parentheses]" and "...dog racing & dog sledding." should have been caught before GAN.
9. Topics that are noticeably missing: The huge role dogs have played in entertainment-specifically as performance animals (not just fiction, but circuses and other venues as well); Controversy over domestication of the dog and breeding practices; A section devoted to feral dogs (while mentioned throughout separate sections, it would seem that this a significant enough topic to merit specific exposition)

-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Zappernapper,

Thanks for reviewing this article; its a pretty long article, so its great that you agreed to help out. Up front, I just wanted to respond to a number of your concerns about formatting issues. We weren't being intentionally lackadaisical about these issues; its just such a large article, and I am a very poor copy editor--my brain just doesn't notice these things.

Otherwise, I think most of what you brought up are things that have been considered as potential changes; I'll happily make these (e.g., removing the dangerous substances section will be a pleasure). I suppose the only real issue I have with your comments is related to your last: could these sections that you are proposing including be an idiosyncratic preference? For instance, I don't feel that entertainment or performance is a central issue to the topic of dogs. The article is pretty bloated as is, and I would like to remove marginal sections. Other potential sections, like a section on feral dogs, sounds reasonable, although slightly marginal. I'll apply many of the fixes you propose and respond to others in a reasonable timeframe. Thanks again for taking on this review! --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

just a quick response - late for work, hehe. I'm sure those no dearth of editors to this article - if everyone takes a section, the copyedit problems shouldn't take too long. As for missing sections - certain kinds of articles require certain kinds of sections. In any article on a subject which has gone from being painted on Minoan walls - to being made into a god - to being the driving force in a billion-dollar pet industry - to getting more air-time than any other non-human animal; i think all these things are equally important. Additionally, the controversy section is there to add some balance to this article which at times can read as a nice article-for-dog-owners. There's especially controversy about back-yard breeders, culling, docking - all of which is oddly absent. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Formal review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

 

1. Is it reasonably well written?

 

A. Prose quality:

• Most of the real problems with prose are covered by MOS guidelines below (1B). however the following are excerpted problem areas-

 

Problem prose

• "...Asian and African breeds, including the..." do we really need 15 examples of Asian and African breeds? Pick two representative breeds of each and stick with them. If we need a comprehensive list, stick it in a note (like refs) so it doesn't detract from the prose.
• "Although these assumptions hold for many species, there is good reason to believe that they do not hold for canines." What is the good reason? I'd rephrase this to avoid that kind of question instead of trying to expand on it.
• "The frequency range of dog hearing is approximately 40 Hz to 60,000 Hz. Dogs detect sounds as low as the 16 to 20 Hz frequency range... and above 45 kHz..." This sounds contradictory and needs to be explained better.
• "Dog types are broad categories based on function, genetics or characteristics." For example...
• "...but several breeds, including ... are nearly as short-lived..." again, this many examples detracts from the prose. Pick two and either remove the rest or put them in a note.
• "Adler & Adler..." This should be rewritten with the doctors full names and contextualized with their speciality.
• "The paws of a dog are half the size of those of a wolf, and their tails tend to curl upwards, another trait not found in wolves." These are unrelated items, they shouldn't be in the same sentence... there's a perfectly good sentence preceding this one that discusses the differences in paws. Try to reorganize the whole "Physical characteristics" subsection of "Diff. from wolves".

 

• I'm ignoring the "Dangerous substances" section as I've already outlined the problems with it, and expect a serious rewrite or removal.
• Review uses of parantheses, and see if the info couldn't be written offset by commas, rewritten into the prose, or outright removed.
• "Taxonomy and evolution": consider a way to reorganize so that you aren't having to tell readers to refer to discussion elsewhere, and generally make it a little easier to follow, the intro paragraph to the section is fine; the mention of controversy and then the use of only one source for the claims suggests a non-neutral POV on the subject, I'm not an expert on the subject but what do other sources say about this topic? - fixed
• The peculiarities of dogs' ears is mentioned in "Hearing", and "Differences from wolves", but absent in "Physical characteristics" - this would be a great place to expand on the topic which is discussed elsewhere in presumptive language (like we already know that they are usually floppy)
• Instructional tone (from above)

 

B. MoS compliance:

• remove or rephrase words like recently, soon, now, currently
• WP:JARGON you should attempt to exaplain, in context, what these words mean - or use synonyms. Only as a last resort should you rely only on wikilinking: landraces, dyadic, mtDNA, founding females, maximal genetic divergence, hybridization, flicker rate, foveal region, dolichocephalic, memmetropic (probably should be emmetropic?), sympatric, alteration (in spaying and neutering)
• WP:LEAD

• Does not summarize article. Noticeably missing: Health, Differences from wolves.
• Does not mention notable controversies - actually the lack of any coverage on controversy is also a problem, see 3A and 4.

• WP:PUNCT really, most of these problems are incredibly silly things like not capitalizing the first letter in a sentence, forgetting a necessary comma, or adding one in bad place. Below is a current TOC of all the sections in this article, when someone has gone through and made sure it is free of errors, strike it out - also feel free to update it as the article changes.

 

Current TOC

By Sketchmoose (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC):

Etymology and related terminology

Taxonomy and evolution

Biology

Senses

Sight

Hearing

Smell

Physical characteristics

Coat

Tail

Types and breeds

Health

Mortality

Predation

Diet

Reproduction

Neutering

Intelligence and behavior

Intelligence

Behavior

Interactions with humans

Work

Sports and shows

Differences from wolves

Physical characteristics

Behavior

Trainability

 

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

• "...classified as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the Gray Wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."
• "According to the Humane Society of the United States..."
• Bob Barker and Drew Carey need to be sourced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

• "Modern dog breeds show more variation in size, appearance, and behavior than any other domestic animal." It was cited in the lead but not the body?
• "The dog widely reported to be the longest-lived on record is "Bluey," purportedly born in 1910 in Australia. He died in 1939 at the age of 29.5 years." The article then goes on to say that the Bluey record is unverified, if this content can be verified as a well-known anecdote, then cite that and present it that way immediately... not three sentences later.
• "Recent studies proved that spayed and neutered dogs in general are more aggressive towards people and other dogs, as well as more fearful and sensitive to touch than dogs than had not been sterilized,[80] though individual effects may vary." so where is the sourced counter-argument?
• "One such class of cognition that involves the understanding that others are conscious agents, often referred to as theory of mind, is an area where dogs excel." Also consider rewording this to make it easier to read, and put theory of mind in "quotes".
• There are cite tags in "Disorders and diseases", "Nutrition", "Reproduction"

C. No original research:

Neutral because of above problems (2A, 2B)

 

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

Missing sections are noted above; additionally - Dogs as food, dogs in science

B. Focused:

 

4. Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:

 

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

The only questionable image is File:Cavalier King Charles Spaniel trio.jpg, where the caption states that it is an example of "with-breed variation" which is not discussed in the accompanying section. either expand the section or remove the image. Also, we devote a whole paragraph to explaining what counter-shading is and yet a single image would be immensely helpful.

 

7. Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I really wanted to be able to place this article on hold. I am sure that lots of editors have spent a good deal of time on the article. But after carefully reading through the prose it seems like the nomination was a bit premature. remember, articles should be nominated only when the main contributors truly feel the article is ready to be promoted, the presence of cite tags and obvious MOS problems are a sign that work still needs to be done. I was only able to pass 3 out of the 8 criteria I explictly assessed - it comes to a 38%. If i could have passed at least a majority of the criteria i would have merely put the article on hold. I'm more than willing to answer any specific questions and to help editors here work towards a renomination in the future. I hope to soon see this article reach beyond GA and become Featured within the near future.

Lack of sweat glands on paws? Where in Coppinger's book ?

I just started with Coppingers book and there was something very strange when compared with this and the grey wolf article. In the greywolf article it was stated that: Unlike dogs and coyotes, gray wolves lack sweat glands on their paw pads. This trait is also present in Eastern Canadian Coyotes which have been shown to have recent wolf ancestry. Itw as similar in this article and the referenced source was Coppinger, Ray (2001). Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. pp. p352. ISBN 0684855305.

Well I just started with the book and in the foreword it was stated that dogs and western coyotes just have a higher density of those sweat glands than wolves, not that wolves lack them. Saidly I can't just turn to the referenced page 352 because I have the german translation, so could someobody tell me in which chapter that page is so I can check whether the contradiction is based on the writer or on the book?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dogs-Breeds-Kyle .L.

    There are many times of dogs including herding Breeds, Toy and Companion, Working dogs, and more.  Working dogs can be anywere from German Sheperds to Labradors, Toy and Companion include dogs such as, Chiwauwaus and Jach Russels. In the category of Herding dogs are, dogs like the Border Collie and Australian Sheperds Kyle .L.

Copyediting notes

I was asked to copyedit this article, and I am doing so, but I think some fundamental rewriting is in order. I have comments here, which i will be adding to as I go through the article.

1. What makes Miklosi such an expert that his book is used more than 20 times (with on page numbers) in the opening sections? As a note, it was more, but there are some paragraphs taken entirely from Miklosi, so I dropped the line-by-line cites in favor of a single paragraph end cite. For such a generic article, one source should not be relied upon so heavily for information in a given area.

2. I will leave it up to the regular editors, but I believe that the etymology section has no place in this article. This article is about the animal, not the word, and the etymology section really sidetracks the article. Since it's useful info in some sense, I haven't hacked it out, but I suggest that some discussion be had on this item amongst the regulars.

3. There's a lot of circular discussion in this article. Many items come up multiple times, but in different sections. Again, I would say that the regulars need to decide on one place to reference information, and leave it in that place within the article. For example, the divergence comes up at least three times, and is only discussed in-depth once. MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

4. I broke down the senses into subsections for ease of use.

5. I removed the numbers of olfactory cells in the section on smell. The numbers mean very little; a postage stamp vs. a handkerchief is dependent on the size of said objects. I think it's enough to say forty times larger and not belabor the point. MSJapan (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Dog health - I removed the portion on heat exhaustion, as it's the only example given. The opening statement as I have reworded it is enough to get the point across, and examples should only be given if multiple useful examples can be found. MSJapan (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

7. I removed the sections on domestic dog nutrition requirements, and also on dangerous substances. Both of these are in violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO. MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

8. I've cut the section on comparison with wolves. As dogs are clearly stated to be descendants of wolves, it's pretty obvious they aren't the same, and I don't believe that the comparative section adds anything of use to this article. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting is complete. Template removed. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)i appreciate you taking the time to go through this, and fix the grammatical/spelling/punctuation errors. I agree with your first point that rather than citing every sentence it is more helpful to cite the paragraph if the whole thing attributable - however in trimming down the paragraph, "This evidence depends on a number of assumptions..." you removed the ref and then added a {{who}}, so I've re-added it.

to the second point - i am by no means a regular editor, but i think entymology sections are expected in articles where it is a term that is so old, just my two cents, we'll see what consensus is.

and any help you can give to the redundancy in this article is appreciated :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the same Miklosi ref, and it still didn't state who claimed it. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit, MSJapan. Miklosi made the claim himself. He considers all of the conflicting evidence and evaluates the weaknesses of each. There may be additional refs that can be provided for the weaknesses, such as the dependence on the wolf-coyote divergence date, etc. I'll see what we can do. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Recommended changes

Thanks for zapper for taking the time to review this behemoth of an article. I've typed up responses to his points below in part just for my own use in addressing the concerns. But in places I disagree and I explain why. I'll update this as I make improvements to address his concerns.

1)

• Instructional language: these sentences need not be instructional. They could be easily changed without altering the meaning of the sentence. Easily addressed.
  • Much of the instructional language has been removed - unsure if there's still a sentence or two. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• I hope the copy edit helped with the readability of the Evolution section. This is a pretty central issue that should be easily accessible. I'll see if I can improve on it as well.
• I'm pleased to see dangerous substances deleted. Perhaps it warrants a stub page of its own elsewhere.
• Re WP:JARGON, this is a pretty subjective issue. I understand your concern, but the solution isn't clear to me. Alteration seems to meet the WP:JARGON description perfectly: a technical slang word. But I think landraces, mtDNA, founding females, genetic divergence, hybridization, and foveal region are all important concepts that are being used precisely here. Some could be explained more, but I hope the context will provide enough information to allow the reader to gloss over the word if they don't care to understand it. Other words, like dolichoencephalic (sp?), emmetropic, and sympatric aren't being used as slang, but also aren't terribly important to the article. If they decrease its readability, they can be removed without much cost.
  • Jargon isn't really subjective, but perhaps i also included words that were merely too technical and which needed explanation. For example, Ctrl+F "landraces" and see the edit i made. Also, if we want to be able to use the shorthand for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) then it should be explained in the first instance (just like with acronyms and initialisms). It doesn't matter if the terms are being used correctly/precisely (if they weren't, I would've removed them right away), it matters that the casual reader will spend too much time clicking a link to find out what we're saying and it is distracting. Of those last three i would suggest keeping sympatric and just explaining it in the first instance. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Re the lead, you are right that this should be expanded greatly. Its a huge article, so I'm not sure every section really needs to be referred to here, but it was clearly lacking as is.
  • Each section is supposed to be a major point of the topic, and because the lead should be a summary of the topic, all major points should be mentioned - we don't need large amounts of prose, and subsection information is of least importance, but a short sentence or two is enough. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2a.)

...classified as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the Gray Wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."

• This point isn't contraversial, and it actually can be removed entirely; the most relevant classification is the ICZN classification; the best reference for that is probably "Mammal Species of the World" 1993 and 2005; I'll stop by the library and look it up just to be sure.
  • you're missing the point, it is not the controversiality of the issue, it's the fact that you're attributing a specific fact to a specific "person". When you do that you need to back it up with a reference.

"According to the Humane Society of the United States..."

• This could use a reference, as it appears to be contraversial. [1] states that the number in 1997 was 2.7 million. [2] state that because the source of the data is not a random sample of US shelters. [3] is the source of the 3-4 million per year. Looks like they made it up. All 3 are WP:RS: American Humane Society, National Council on Pet Population, and the Humane Society of the United States.

Bob Barker and Drew Carey need to be sourced.

• Can we just delete this as trivia?
  • we could probably have it moved the Spaying and neutering article, but because it is a long standing piece of the article i would be interested to know what others think. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm glad to see you digging through the references to determine the reliability of the sources being used. I admit that i did not do this as the problems originally raised seemed numerous enough, and (ironically) i didn't want to scare everyone off with a big pile of homework. i'd suggest going through and double checking all your sources, making sure they say what they claim, and that they are indeed reliable. i've tried to clean up as many as i could using automated tools but i may take a closer look and fix some of the nitpickier details. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2b.)

• "More variability" is easily referenced
• I'd be happy to remove Bluey entirely; lets focus on the 24 year record thats verifiable.

"Recent studies proved that spayed and neutered dogs in general are more aggressive towards people and other dogs, as well as more fearful and sensitive to touch than dogs than had not been sterilized,[80] though individual effects may vary." so where is the sourced counter-argument?

This is a recent addition (post nomination) that I think is BS. The source is a talk given by a grad student. Neither the grad student nor the advisor has subsequently published these data, despite having multiple years to do so. Further, the authors published a study in which they had the data to make a statement, and made none. Another editor has pointed out another source, but the source cites a number of contradictory/inconsistent findings that are difficult to integrate.

as this is a contentious statement and a grad student's pet theory (pun not intended) should never be an RS, we should probably remove the sentence entirely. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"One such class of cognition that involves the understanding that others are conscious agents, often referred to as theory of mind, is an area where dogs excel." Also consider rewording this to make it easier to read, and put theory of mind in "quotes".

OK. This isn't a verifiability issue though?

My fault for not being clear, that dogs "excel" in understanding a "theory of mind" is somewhat arguable, and a little peacock-y. Especially because the last sentence of the paragraph states, "the... evidence points to dogs possessing at least a limited form of theory of mind. (emphasis added)" The are two very different claims and we should either draw attention to this inconsistency or remove it. Readabilty issues have been addressed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are cite tags in "Disorders and diseases", "Reproduction"

The citation tag in "Reproduction" marks a couple of silly statements that could be removed. I'll put a reference to the health tag; It could also be improved, that doesn't look like an exhaustive list.

I would actually recommend against expanding that list, if not outright removing it. Drawing parallels between human and canid diseases isn't incredibly helpful, we could present the same information outside of the anthropocentric context. Ironically, probably the most notable zoonosis, rabies, isn't mentioned at all. You might find the merck vet manual to be a useful source in getting the right scope on this subject. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

3.)

Missing sections are noted above; additionally - Dogs as food, dogs in science

• Here is one area where we appear to disagree. There used to be a "dogs as food" sentence, but I deleted it because (1) I thought even a sentence was undue weight, and (2) it was orphaned, with no section to which it really belonged. Every organism has, at one time or another, been a source of food for another. I don't feel that this is an issue that is specifically relevant to dogs.
  • We're devoting a section to the roles dogs have played in human society, and to be characterizing all those roles as either pets (which is also oddly missing from that specific section), working dogs, show dogs, or racing dogs is erroneous. In some parts of the world the dog's penchant for domestication has led to the same result as that for sheep and cattle. There is an entire market and infrastructure set up around dog meat, look up some info on Vietnam for an example. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Dogs in entertainment strikes me as a tangential issue that cannot be considered central to the topic. If there was an article on this, I would argue to add it to "See Also." For me, I guess the issue is that entertainment is not a key aspect of this topic, nor are dogs a special topic in entertainment. If this section had been in the article, I think I would have cut it out because the article is already so bloated. Also, I would guess that horses get more airtime than dogs do, but these are simply the most ubiquitous domesticated animals. Their presence in art reflects their presence in human life, not a special importance to art.
  • So you're saying that the dog's ubiquity doesn't merit discussion in it's degree? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Dogs in science may be different. Recently, dogs have been used more in genetic studies because of their wide range of genetic material and because they share many disorders with humans. A section on mapping the dog genome for the purpose of exploring genetic diseases is an issue that is specific to dogs. But other uses, where dogs could be replaced by any other mammal without altering the scientific studies, again seem tangential.
  • Dogs have been used since science's early days as a model organism for thought and behavior, specifically in experiments on operant and classical conditioning. They are one of only a handful of animals that were used in the experiments leading up to a formal definition of such terms. if you want to focus on recent genetic experiments, that would satisfy the GA requirement, but you are ignoring years of work the dog has done in the creation of modern psychology. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Feral dogs would probably make an interesting section. I don't know much about them. I think its a good idea to add this section, but I don't really consider the article lacking without it; For me this is back-burner. I encourage other editors to make a project of this.

my above notes aside, it seems you feel that this article is bloated and are wary of adding content. The dog is a long-existing topic and there's a lot of information on it, as such the article should be reflective of that. Ideally you want this article to reach FA, but that will never happen if you resist attempts to make the article comprehensive and balanced. There is far too much emphasis on the cute-and-cuddly side of dogs that every dog-owner likes to read about. And again, where is the controversy on docking, culling, back-yard breeding, on even having dogs as pets in general? I don't mean for all these topics to have huge sections of their own, but due weight would indicate that these topics need to at least be mentioned. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Free photos of dogs

I'm able to hand over the rights of hundreds of my photos that you might include on the article with no charge. Please aware me whenever it would needed. I produce and collect my own material as a hobbie.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

it might help if we could see where these photos are located and the related copyrights you have on them. - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 09:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Afghan breed

The link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan should be changed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Hound on the main page, under the list of a few older breeds, toward the top.

(Sorry I don't have 10 edits yet, so can't edit semi-protected pages)

Inlinesk8er (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The wikilink has been fixed.Coaster1983 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How old are dogs?

This article is very, pardon, dogmatic in its presentation of dogs as being 15,000 years old. The trouble is the previously accepted age is now debatable. Germonpré et al abstract have presented fairly convincing fossil anatomical evidence that dogs are actually at least +/-31,000 years old. Would the usual editors allow a change of the numbers?Trilobitealive (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

nobody owns the article, and the spirit of wikipedia is to be bold. Actually, reading the Taxonomy and evolution section, it appears that a wide range of dates appear. and it claims the only agreed upon consensus is that we aren't really sure. According to the article, DNA evidence points to a divergence spanning from 15 to 40,000 years ago, or as much as 140,000 years ago. I don't think it would be out of line to squeeze your info in there somewhere, just be sure to keep the section readable as there have been prose issues before. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the main section and the taxonomy and evolution sections might have been written by two primary editors. I just ran across this particular reference on anatomic evidence which echoes what the DNA guys have been saying and was wondering about plugging it in here. I guess it depends on whether a reader is more oriented toward classic or molecular biology which they believe is more credible. Both support extending the age of dogs but neither support an arbitrary date.

My primary plan would be deleting references to the date in the main section or changing them to "more than" or giving a range of values, but this is a really good tightly written non-fringe article and people have the right to revert when a stranger starts changing things without good explanation. Will come back in a few days or so and do some changes if no one else objects.Trilobitealive (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My hope is that the section doesn't come off as supporting dogma, but rather that Trilobite couldn't help but use the pun.

So this topic is a difficult one with no clear answer at present. There have been many academic papers published on the topic, and so a full discussion of the evidence goes well beyond the scope of this article. My goal for this section was not to present all possible answers that have support from at least one paper, but rather to summarize and present the prevailing "best-guess" amongst experts, while making it clear that it was nothing more than that. To this end, I feel that Miklosi 2009 is the best source. He considers a wide range of evidence, discusses the limitations of a number of different approaches, presents his own position, and discusses what he feels to be the consensus opinion amongst experts.

I don't quite know what to make of this reference. I found this article very difficult to read. No doubt the fact that the first 5 authors spoke 4 different languages didn't help :). I don't doubt that the article is interesting, but the article itself doesn't really make an attempt to synthesize its findings into the literature. My read is that these authors are saying, "Genetically, the Goyet canids look nothing like modern dogs nor wolves; from the context and their morphology, we are classifying them as dogs. Thus we propose that dogs were [being] domesticated prior to 30,000 years ago." Again, I don't quite know what to make of that.

BTW, thanks for the ref; I hadn't seen it yet. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it currently says "at least". I see no logical conflict with "more than". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

which means that dogs can detect sounds outside both ends of the human auditory spectrum

but humans can hear even 20Hz.. dogs only above 40Hz...

Notes

somone who can edit the article needs to hide a note written about not having a reference. 125.239.48.128 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Health risk, Brain size

Reading this page I found the remark that dogs are not a real hazard to human health, while in fact they are especialy to children (it was pretty easy to find a reference for that). Also the estimate of reduction in brain size should be about 30% I believe. I checked to references, a Russian one that was hard to retrace and the used reference. The used reference gave a 20% reduction in brain size for equal skull size and a 20% reduction in skull size, amounting to 40%. Also from what I remembered from a documentary comment the figure should be around 30%.

All in all I think the article is a little skewed in favor of the dog, as it is written by dog lovers. I like dogs also, but living in a crowded city where dogs are still doing their thing on the sidewalk or at playing grounds it is hard not to see the negative aspects.

Viridiflavus (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As cuisine

There is no info about dogs as food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.245.250 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw this, I thought it was maybe trolling - but no, you have a point. This article is very much written from the Western standpoint of dogs as pets and helpful friends. Perhaps we should have a section on "Cultural viewpoints" or some such, discussing:

• Dogs as violent amusement, such as the past practice of bear-baiting and the lamentably current practice of dogfighting.
• Dogs as food, a largely East Asian practice I believe - and the cultural conflict thereto (since Western residents are, umm, "somewhat opposed" to this practice. ;)
• Dogs as unclean creatures, I believe this is the Muslim view and I'm not sure on where Hinduism places the dog.
• Animal abuse / dogs as property. This may attract some heated discussion though.

To address our global readership, this article should probably address all these points in summary fashion. 75.161, perhaps you would like to make an attempt at editing the article to include a new section? Franamax (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NO but thank you for seeing my point. I have terrible writing skills. I love dogs that is why I brought it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.245.250 (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

this point was brought up in the last GA nom, and is one of the resons it failed. While in-depth discussion would be an FA issue, a mention of these topics is required. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 10:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Canine Cognition Lab text

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/doglab.html

--Calypsoparakeet (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My Rottweiller speyed bitch smiles; has anyone else seen this in their dogs? Her 'smiling' has been witnessed by our family but also by many, many people who she has become to trust. Does anyone else see this in their dogs or is it just her? I think other dogs may 'smile' too, please let me know? A

Many dogs and other mammals appear to smile but it almost certainly doesn't indicate the same as a human smile - see the Wikipedia smile article. Barnabypage (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

dogs help humans Dogs have been with us all through and the history of the world. Cats have too, but dogs have shown have a more positive impact on our history. Dogs have been around helping us all through the years, helping us to evolve to become we are at today. “Evidently, the domestication of dogs and the civilization of man occurred at the same time.” (Reader's Digest Illustrated 16) “Dogs offer us emotional support, lift our spirits, and ease stress.” (Thomas 97) Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall. Guide to your Dog. New York: Wild Discovery, 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.93.243 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong name

The article is entitled "dog", but the word dog can also mean any species in the Canidae family, including wolves, foxes, jackals and domestic Dogs. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

i think that most people would be typing in dog to look up the domesticated wolf, and it would be going against established precedent that we use the common name of an animal when there is one people can agree on. this precedent is itself based on the principle of least astonishment and guidance at WP:NAME. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

just one subspecies?!

Wait -- so just the one subspecies encapsules all the different shapes and sizes of dogs? That's freaking amazing. -- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.62.25 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

yup, oddly enough, we consider two animals as distinct as the English sheepdog and Chihuahua to be the same subspecies, check out the article on Species for more info on the trickiness of all this. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Health risks to humans section.

Most people also find dogs urinating and defecating in a public place to be offensive To me this sentence seems unnecessary, out of place, and poorly cited. 67.233.209.55 (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)