Talk:Tamaskan Dog

Date of Origin?

Hi Exhaustfumes,

I see that you have changed the year of initial Tamaskan breeding back to "in the begining" instead of 2005. It was myself who edited this part of the page to read 2005 after research into the breed through the links provided on the wiki page.

Please provide some information about the date of initial matings so that the information on the wiki page can be corrected.

Best regards, Onefivenine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefivenine (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where you got your information from, could you provide a link that works? The only referance I can find to 2005 is the first Tamaskan imported into America. Exhaustfumes

Hi Exhaustfumes,

I've just checked the link to Blustag above, it seems to be working fine. It goes straight to the history page with the information about the origins of the breed. Below is the info from the page in its entirety. The text in bold I have added to highlight the sections that I founded my opinions on.

"The first dogs to start the ball rolling which led to the Tamaskan Dogs of today came over from America in the 80’s. These 5 dogs were imported into UK and described as husky type dogs – origins unknown.

These dogs were then bred to Alaskan Malamute, Siberian Husky and German Shepherd crosses – origins unknown, with the idea in mind of creating a dog that resembled the wolf but with a good temperament thus being suitable as a family dog foremost with working ability.

In the early days with selective breeding by a couple of people these dogs were mated to perhaps pure Siberian Huskies or first generation crossbreeds. A couple of German Shepherds were also used and Alaskan Malamute but after that they were selectively bred to each other over a few years trying to create this wolf look-a-like (up until this time no one is 100% certain of the breeding programmes as no records were made available) . Eventually given the name wolf-dog, but in approx 1988 changed to Northern Inuit (NI) as there was no wolf content and this name was misleading. A Northern Inuit Society was then formed."

So far this is the history of the Northern Inuit, one of the founding breeds used to create the Tamaskan

"However, some time later there were differences of opinions now the breed was developing and this led to a split and a new Society starting up. With two NI Societies and the breed going in two directions one Society decided to change the name of the breed to the Utonagan to disassociate itself with the NI. A Utonagan Society was then formed. The new Utonagan were by now starting to look quite different to the NI (who to this day are still running their own Society) but still not looking wolf-like enough, although temperaments of all of these dogs were exemplary. After a short while there was yet again another split due to differences of opinions and again a new Society was born called The British & International Utonagan Society headed by the then President of the original Utonagan Society along with some of their members.

The original Utonagan Society then ceased to exist until some time much later when it was resurrected by a new committee.

Meanwhile The British & International Utonagan Society continued to selectively breed and improve type, keeping all records of mating’s, health issues etc and started a hip scoring and eye testing scheme, setting rules and regulations, a code of ethics and providing breeder’s contracts. Eventually these dogs started to look different to the dogs being bred by The (original) Utonagan Society."

The above section relates to Utonagans

"Sadly the original breeder’s had kept inaccurate records in the breeds beginnings, mating’s had taken place of closely related dogs resulting in some health issues creeping into the breed. This was not discovered until much later. What was now needed was a new injection of healthy unrelated bloodlines meaning that they had to look elsewhere for new dogs with the look and working ability that was needed, not forgetting temperament which they certainly did not want to loose.

"It was at this point in time in 2005 that the search for other wolfy looking dogs with similar ancestry led to Lapland where dogs of a very similar appearance were being bred for sled pulling in extreme temperatures. These dogs close ancestors were also some of the best sled racing dogs in the world and would enhance the breed’s future working ability.

After some negotiations with the kennel owner a female was purchased and imported into UK in early 2005 with a further six dogs booked for early 2006 from the same kennels.

The two sections above are as far as I can make out the start of the Tamaskan dog as a breed independent from the founding breeds.

"With a collection of new bloodlines now organised it was time to think about the future. It was then decided by the committee members of the British & International Society after much debate to close down the Society as the old (original) Utonagan Society had just been resurrected with a new committee who did not wish to follow the standards of The British and International Utonagan Society or to include new bloodlines in their breeding program. Therefore it seemed obvious that the present Utonagan would soon not resemble the ‘new’ dogs whatsoever and they would need a new name. It was in 2005 that the original female imported from Finland was then taken back to Finland along with 7 selected dogs from the Blustag Kennels of UK.

The reserved six dogs were then collected from Lapland, out of these; two were exported to UK in early 2006, an adult male and female from different litters.

It was very early in 2006 after The British and International Utonagan Society closed down that The Tamaskan Dog Register was formed. Tamaska means ‘Mighty Wolf’ in North American Indian language The Tamaskan Register is the governing body now for all Tamaskan dogs throughout the world and was formed by the original committee members of The British and International Utonagan Society. Since forming in early 2006 there is now a Tamaskan Dog Society of Great Britain and a National Tamaskan Club of America along with The Tamaskan Register based in Finland.

Tamaskan have been exported from Finland throughout 2006 to Holland, UK, Sweden and USA and have also been exported from UK to USA. Early 2007 saw four more (from different litters) being sent overseas to USA.

The Tamaskan has a very bright future and must NOT be confused with the Utonagan whose standard is somewhat different. The main differences being the depth of stop, shape of head, length of coat and the Utonagan’s acceptance of a wide range of colours and markings. With many other small differences the Tamaskan is in all a different breed which anyone can see by comparing pictures from the Tamaskan Gallery with those found on The Utonagan Society Gallery." Onefivenine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefivenine (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have tried from two seperate computers to view the 'link' you have provided and it just does not exist. To stop any further arguments about this I will remove any reference to the date whatsoever. Exhaustfumes —Preceding comment was added at 11:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Exhaustfumes,

The web page containing the above information has now been removed but I can confirm that the page was there untill the 9th of January 2008 and have the screen shots to prove it. It appears as though the Blustag Kennel was one of the founding kennels of the breed and as such their information should be accurate. I do not understand what the problem is with date this breed was created, be it 3 years or 30!

Do you have any contradictory evidence for the date of origin of this breed?

Regards

Onefivenine--Onefivenine (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Exhaustfumes,

The same information relating to the origin of the Tamaskan dog is available through the following link doublejkennels and was easy to find via a google search.

I will change the Wiki page back as this information seams to be accurate and verifiable.

Onefivenine--Onefivenine (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I believe that information should be taken from club websites and reliable sources rather than breeders websites but I will leave it for discussion.

Exhaustfumes —Preceding comment was added at 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the TDR who have informed me that the dates can be argued, but the oldest recorded 1st generation Tamaskan was born in 2002 although the breed register (and clubs) weren't formed until later.

Exhaustfumes 1:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By adding the 2002 it is out of context so that would be wrong. Which is why I had left it without an exact date so as not to confuse people. But if you insist on having a date of origin I suppose we must leave it as 2002, although I don't believe we need to mention the date of origin at all as it is clearly arguable. Exhaustfumes 3:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The breeds used in the Tamaskan Explained

Hi Exhaustfumes,

I think the page looks great. I've been adding internal links but could not find any information on Finnish racing huskies, if you have any information could you start a wiki page as I can't find any info anywhere about these dogs.

Cheers

Onefivenine--Onefivenine (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Finnish racing huskies are not a breed in themselves, they are basically Alaskan huskies and are not registered, a mix of husky and other fast breeds designed to create the ultimate sled racing dog. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be Finnish Arctic Huskies?

Exhaustfumes 7:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, a bit like a Eurohound. I've heard of Arctic Huskies but just assumed that they where also a little known breed.

Do you have any info about the actual dogs used, like what sort of mix they where, or any pics?--Onefivenine (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do, but I don't think I should complicate the article by adding stuff like that, its quite lengthy now as it is.

Exhaustfumes 11:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you to add that info to this page, but thought that perhaps you could start a Finnish racing huskies page as no one else has contributed any information about these dogs. If these dogs are of the same make up as the Eurohound then we could just add an internal link to that page.--Onefivenine (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well no, there is no finnish racing husky as a breed. They are basically Alaskan Huskies that are from Finland. The dogs used to create the Tamaskan in Finland were either pure FCI registered Siberian huskies or a husky cross from finland designed for racing (finnish racing huskies for want of a better way of putting it). --Exhaustfumes (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Validity

This article was deleted, with an overwhelming majority of people deciding to delete it rather than keep it. Many state that it's an elaborate hoax; there is no Tamaskan breed; is there new evidence to warrent recreating this article? If not, I might suggest it be deleted again (as much as I'd like for there to actually be Tamaskan dogs, since I love wolves). Has anything changed since this articles deletion? 207.12.38.107 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it might be a good idea to dredge up the old deleted article (if possible), look at what was written on it, and incorporate that info into this new article. And guys, if I don't get a response in a reasonable time, I might contact a mod to put this article back up for voting. 207.12.38.107 (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was deleted last time purely because of a lack of published sources, since its first deletion on wikipedia the Tamaskan has appeared in local newpapers and national magazines therefore following the requests of Wikipedia members for reinstatement in the encyclopedia. This is a real breed to suggest it is a hoax is ridiculous. (Exhaustfumes) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.176.114 (talk)

I think the article should be left up--Ltshears (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan

The average life span is an estimate taking into account the average lifespan of the breeds used to make up the Tamaskans, all of which are about 14 - 15 years of age. We have so far had no Tamaskan die of old age, the oldest pure bred 1st generation Tamaskan is 7 years old. When we have more data we will obviously update this average if it needs to be done.--Exhaustfumes (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC) The oldest living Tamaskan has just had a birthday and is now 12 years old! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.101.9 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tamaskan Dog Club of Australia

This is the link to the Tamaskan Dog Register Notice Board which states 'coming soon The Tamaskan Dog Club of Australia' http://www.tamaskan-dog.com/Notice%20Board/notice-board.htm This is a link to a list of breeders on the Tamaskan Dog Society of Great Britain website which lists a Australian breeders http://www.tamaskan-dog.co.uk/Kennel%20Names/names.htm This is a link to the forum where the Secretary of the Tamaskan Dog Register states the 'coming' of the Tamaskan Dog Club of Australia. I can also supply the contact details of the lady who is starting up this club so please stop vandalising this article --Exhaustfumes (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC) http://tdsgbforum.forumup.com/viewtopic.php?t=30&mforum=tdsgbforum

wolf resemblance/appearence rather than "morphology"

I think that unless there are real comparative studies of this and other candidate breeds asserting that it has the most wolf-like morphology, the article would be more correct in stating that it's one of the dog breeds which resemble a wolf the most, without having recent wolf ancestry. Otherwise it's original research/unsupported claim. As far as I know, despite of the superficial looks, could be that another dog breed is actually more morphologically similar to the wolves, and yet, it could be as different in superficial appearance as the chow chow. As an analogy with more distant groups, think of ostriches and dinosaurs like ornithomimus and the like, and even crocodilians like effigia. They're all ostrich-like in their superficial looks, but morphologically they're in fact more similar to other theropod dinosaurs and crocodiles, respectively. --Extremophile (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

can a have blue eyes?

just wondering if its possible for a Tamaskan Dog to have blue eyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob1191811 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No Tamaskan have blue eyes and if one ever should then it would be a serious fault --Exhaustfumes (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tamaskan Club of America

Tamaskan Club of America This Club is run by one kennel (despite a 'fake' link for another breeder, blustag, which is actually the kennel name of the founder of the real Tamaskan Dog), he is a commercial breeding kennels who breeds Tamaskan cross breeds and sells them for more than pure bred Tamaskan are worth. He has been vandalising wikipedia under a few different names and trying to add a link to his fake club, which he has been accepting membership monies for. Please do not be fooled, this is not a legitimate club, nor are his dogs pure bred Tamaskan. According to his own website these dogs have timber wolf content and are a mix of different breeds to create what he calls Tamaskan wolfdogs. This breeder and this club have nothing to do with the real Tamaskan dog and links to this kennel or club should not be allowed to be included in the Tamaskan dog article. --Exhaustfumes (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The breeder of the Tamaskan club of America was orignally part of the breeding group now known as The TDR. Some of his dogs were from them so to say his dogs aren't real is misleading. Is he not allowed to start his own registry and adopt his own standards?. Any reference to being a commercial breeder has no relevance to the Tamaskan discussion. The other breeders aren't giving their dogs away for free and I don't see what the relevance is whether you are making more or less money than someone else. Sure the TDR says it is a registered non-profit organization but you are not buying the dogs from the organization you are buying them from the members who charge a fee like anyone else. The opinion of the preceeding post represents the opinion only of it's own members but furnishes no evidence that they alone have exclusive right to use the name Tamaskan.05:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Sick Of Spin (talk)

Id just like to mentioned that Rightpuppy Kennel in America, the owner of the Tamaskan Club of America purchased only 3 pure Tamaskan (one of which has died, the other has been rehomed) and he has a breeding pool of well over 10 dogs that are not Tamaskan. I therefore believe that any puppies produced are simple crossbreeds and not Tamaskan. However he is now listing his dogs as American Tamaskan and is hinting that his kennel produces a seperate breed entirely while still clinging onto the Tamaskan name in a bid to sell his puppies. Either way I agree that his club should not be listed in future in reference to the Tamaskan breed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.101.9 (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

An update the person who runs this disputed club. He has arrest warrants for nine counts of obtaining property by false pretenses and his daughter has two counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. Essentially, they're being arrested for running an puppy mill. I'll update if more information becomes available. Relevant articles: http://myfox8.com/2013/02/20/kennel-owner-daughter-charged-with-faking-dogs-health-certificates/ http://m.wbtv.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbtv.com%2Fstory%2F21252641%2Fdogs-sold-from-local-kennel-making-people-sick#.USQIdQ_SD7o PedanticSophist (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK according to the contributors of this article there two different clubs claiming to be the "official" Tamaskan Dog Registry and yet according to this same article officialdom is not pronounced upon yourself or by your small group of followers. So any pronouncements about whose dogs are official and whose aren't are dubious at best. Are we to accept that because both claim to be authentic that everyone else's dogs became fake and they have no rights to pursue whatever directions with their dogs they see fit? Again bringing into the forum information about arrest warrants that have nothing to do with the topic is only being used to try and cloud the public perception about the dogs authenticity and the rights of individual breeders to pursue their own best perceived direction. I think this forum should avoid using smear tactics by posting claims of criminal activity on unrelated issues besides it is still supposedly innocent until proven guilty correct? I have read many allegations of criminal activity by numerous breeders of various organizations which is why I encourage people to not give too much credence to these endless allegations but require proof of convictions and seriously question what relevance if any it has to the topic at hand. So in other words even if the allegations were true it doesn't alter the fact the owner of this organization acquired some Tamasakan dogs and at some point had a parting of ways and now has pursued his own direction with his dogs.Sick Of Spin (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to show that only 1 pure Tamaskan Dog is being used in his breeding program. If I took 12 Alaskan Malamutes and 1 Siberian Husky and bred that husky a few times to my Alaskan Malamutes (but more often than not bred Malamute to Malamute) that does not give me the right to go round calling all my puppies Huskies, purely because they are more popular and more likely to sell! As to the arrest of the person in question, perhaps PedanticSophist is just trying to show the character and trustworthiness of the owner of the American Tamaskan Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.66.195 (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No doubt there is an attempt to make character inferences just as the many websites out there make many character inferences about many of the Tamaskan breeders conduct and alleged scandals. But the website should not be used as an attempt to smear people.Once you start down this road where do you draw the line? Are we going to do a back ground check on all the breeders and enter any dirt that is found? I personally don't think that's what this article is supposed to be about but is being used by some for that purpose. This isn't anyone's personal forum or website where some seem to feel the privilege to make character assassinations with impunity. This is about the dog breed not so much the breeders and participants should try to separate the information about the dogs from their personal feelings towards individuals whether they feel justified or not. And the owner of the Tamaskan Club of America did have 3 Tamaskans he bought which no one denies which were in his breeding program. And the other Tamaskan organizations have mechanisms for which they allow for non-purebred Tamaskan dogs to be brought into their registry. Why is he not allowed this same privilege?Sick Of Spin (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No-Wolf-Tamaskan-Fable Website

This website is a hoax / rumor spreading website designed to encourage people away from the Tamaskan and towards a new similar breed of dog being bred by the creator of this No-Wolf-Tamaskan-Fable-Website. The response from the Tamaskan Dog Register can be seen here [1] --Exhaustfumes (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Many of the editors to this article are self-confessed dog breeders, several of whom breed Tamaskan dogs or variations thereof. None of the sources could be considered wholly reliable - they comprise the 'official' words of the registering body and an online blog about dogs. Additionally the 'sources' provided do not back up much of the information in this article. Recently much information was deleted from the article and has been reintroduced in bad faith without sources, making the entire article seem like an advertisement for whichever dog breeder is editing it this week. Also considering that the 'official registering body' is entirely self proclaimed and without authority it follows that this entire article is in dispute. There has been no evidence provided that the Tamaskan is a noteworthy breed, and some dispute about whether it even exists in the way mentioned here. In the future all comments in the article should be attributable to reliable third party sources or they will be removed. Weakopedia (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this article has a real problem as almost all the contributors have conflicts of interest and appear to be bringing a dispute between various vested interests into Wikipedia. Entirely neutral sources are thin on the ground. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think severe vandalism has meant enthusiasts of the breed have been fighting to keep this article correct. Rumours from a rival dog breed suggesting the Tamaskan has wolf content have led to this vandalism. This breed may only be 9 years old, but it is a noteworthy breed. Every dog since the very beginning has been DNA profiled and now has its own profile as a seperate breed. They are also counted as a seperate breed with the BVA and several insurance companies. They have been mentioned in several magazines and newspapers.

I think the article should perhaps be reverted to the way it was before all the vandalism started Blufawn (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.96 (talk)

I think those submitting articles to this discussion should refrain from using terms like vandalism which is an accusation of a crime without submittng evidence of anyone being convicted of a crime. Using inflamatory terms does nothng to serve the topic being discussed and this forum shouldn't be used to make personal attacks.70.29.128.102 (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism is not the accusation of a crime, it's a term in use here on WP to refer to the act of adding nonsense to articles, blanking pages, removing pertinent information, etc etc. It's not an inflammitory term and it's not a personal attack and it does serve a purpose in this discusssion. On that note, this discussion is over a year old anyways so your comments are unlikely to be seen to begin with.--TKK ^{bark !} 16:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The modern legal definition of vandalism is a crime and without proof of a criminal conviction is baseless and inflammatory. It is sufficient to know the opposing sides in these discussions have strong beliefs in their own position and just as much right to express their opinion without being labelled as a vandal which has the tendency to smear ones reputation. Let's keep it respectable and user friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sick Of Spin (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, just because a term has a separate legal meaning doesn't affect how the term is used here. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." So, calling an edit vandalism has nothing to do with off-wiki criminal charges; it only refers to on-wiki disruption. (Whether the term is misused when an edit is in good faith with but disagreed with by another editor is another matter entirely.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2013 (U

Again if we are to assign words our own personal meanings the conversation will become meaningless. Vandalism is the willful destruction or public or private property and is considered a crime and I have never heard the term applied without the inference of criminal action. I have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that their intentions are good willed in the absence of any proof of criminal conviction suggesting otherwise. If you don't mean vandalism then use a more use a more user friendly term that doesn't infer intentional willful destruction of property.

The problem is that there have been so many bouts of revision that there ca

n't really be said to be a neutral version we can go back to. If there are more independant sources that you can cite then please do so as it would allow us to attribute the claims in the article to these reliable independant secondary sources. What we have right now is the self published opinion of the self appointed breeding society, and another self-published piece about dogs. The TDRs opinions may be perfectly valid, the problem is that they are the primary source and we just don't have many secondary sources to back them up. If you can help with specific references that would help get us to where we could remove the neutrality tag. Weakopedia (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The TDR is not the only society who are involved with this breed.

Euro Tamaskan, the Tamaskan Dog Society of Great Britain, the National Tamaskan Club of America and also a dutch club but not sure what its called support the TDR. These Clubs as well as smallers ones such as Tamaskan Rescue UK, Tamaskan Dog Showing Club and the Tamaskan Health Database and all the breeders all recognise the TDR as the official registering body. The founders of the breed still sit on the committee of the TDR and it is supported by everyone involved with the Tamaskan Dog, I think that is enough to make it official. --Exhaustfumes (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Officialdom is not bestowed upon an organisation simply because many of it's members are in agreement. You say that the TDR is not the only society involved with the breed but then go on to mention a set of societies involved ONLY with Tamaskans. Considering how few Tamaskans there are in reality this means that each of those societies must have quite a limited membership. Let us imagine that I buy a Tamaskan dog which is 'certified' by the TDR. I then make my own internet page and tell the TDR I have formed a society. All I have done is perpetuate the TDR. This isn't a case of established societies working with the TDR or with Tamaskans, it is just the TDR branching out. Therefore all statements from all these societies can be seen to be an extension of the TDRs own opinions.

The fact is that there is an international society for the maintainance of all dog breeds and the TDR is not a member. This means that all the comments from all the societies you mentioned are self generated and unregulated. Even if EVERY Tamaskan owner were to say that the TDR is the official body does not make any kind of new reality - there are far too few of them to make that so. However, as this articles history can show, not every Tamaskan breeder or owner is in agreement. It is also seen on the TDR site that they are at the moment uninterested in pursuing official recognition. This all means that the TDR are a self declared authority which maintains that authority only through the opinions of it's members.

Because of this the TDRs comments cannot be taken to be fact and are not considered reliable secondary sources. The breeders who are affiliated with the TDR are also not reliable secondary sources. This is the essence of the difficulty with the article. The TDR created the breed, as you have said, and are the principle advocators of the breed. Their opinions may be valid but it still requires reliable secondary sources to validate them. Weakopedia (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely the same thing can be said of other organisations. What makes the Kennel Club the official authority? It was started by a small group of people, all the clubs must be affiliated with them and breeders must be registered with them.

They are a money making organisation run by a committee. What is the differance between the Kennel Club and The Tamaskan Dog Register other than size, age and popularity? What exactly would make the TDR official if they are too young to be accepted by the KC? OR are they not allowed to have a group officially represent them until they are recognised? That seems a bit unfair to me.--Exhaustfumes (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2010 (

You have already answered your question... The difference between the KC and the TDR is size, age and popularity - in a word, notability. We can show it has a long history and has been accepted across the world as the official dog registering body of all official dog breeds and is accepted not only by members but even governments. The TDRs role is disputed for not belonging to the official recognition body for dogs, it is also disputed amongst Tamaskan owners and breeders as is evidenced by the contributions to this article.

However remember that the KC is also not necessarily a reliable source for statements about itself. Verifiability and notability comes from the KC and it's actions being discussed in reliable secondary sources. There are millions of sources that verify everything to do with the KC yet only a handful which verify either TDR or Tamaskan. This does not mean that the TDR or the Tamaskan cannot be reliable confirmed but it is still necessary to confirm it - it's just that it is far easier with the KC as they are officially recognised and historical with a history of sources to match.

The neutrality tag is appropriate as there are many statements in this article which can only be sourced to the TDR, statements about behaviour and suitability which without a reliable secondary source are unverifiable. I haven't deleted or modified anything in the article yet, and I am trying also to find useful sources, but ultimately all statements must be sourced, whether the article is KC or TDR or anything else. Weakopedia (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If a group questions the authority of the kennel clubs it begs the question why would they be seeking official recognition from them? Since the TDR has told it's customers that when they are accepted by the Kennel clubs only their members will be accepted it is indicative they have not yet received such official recognition.Sick Of Spin (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

Disputes over the content of this article continue. To a neutral third party (i.e. myself) it would appear that no guaranteed way of determining which of the involved organisations is the true 'authority' on this breed (if it is a breed at all). It would also appear that there is no citable recognition of any of those involved from any authoritative third-party organisation. So we are at an impasse and the reader has no way of determining who is right, who is wrong and who is merely using Wikipedia to promote their commercial interests.

So. Can I suggest that as a way forward, and as a way of minimizing any possible conflict of interest, we removed all references and links to all these organisations. That way there is no question of anyone promoting their organisation, and perhaps we will just have the input of those editors who only have a genuine interest in improving the article.

I realise that this may result in a loss of information, as some of the cited material is coming from one or other organisation's website. But we may at least then be making a clean start, based on undisputed facts that have consensus.

Otherwise I can see only two other options;

• attempt to create an article that spends more time neutrally documenting the disputes rather than discussing the dog itself.
• leave the article as is, as a on-going battlefield.

Both these other options could end up in the article being locked-down (to the dissatisfaction of all involved), or even nominated for deletion on the basis that the article is about a dispute of no notability between breeders, or that there there is no reliably sourced information that such a breed even exists.

Thoughts? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A good starting point might be to request semi-protection for the page as most of the vandalism and unsourced additions come from single purpose accounts and IP addresses. That way the article space would be less of a battleground and give us space to try sourcing some of the claims. Weakopedia (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is a content dispute, it is not vandalism. Disputed edits are not necessarily vandalism. You are unlikely to get semi-protect approved without either constant vandalism (of which there is no recent examples) or an ongoing edit war, and at that point you have no say on [[what version of the article will be protected. And as the dispute involves autoconfirmed editors, the only possible protection given would be full protection, which benefits no-one. See guidelines on this here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is not exactly a content dispute, that would imply that someone had sourced content that gave a different opinion that that which the article presents, however the additions of the newly registered IPs has been unreferenced and consisted mostly of obvious vandalism. Just this last month there have been seven SPAs come along to add unsourced content, add opinion, blank the page and do various other things.

Here are the last seven SPAs contributions.

Note that all of these were last month, so whether or not the level of vandalism constitutes the necessity for semiprotection the fact is that those who wish to add unreferenced content have changed tactics and are not using registered accounts anymore but exclusively SPA IP addresses.

As to the article, well you are not the only unconnected editor - I've never even owned a dog, horrible smelly things they are, noisy too. The article has been written from a slightly promotional point of view however most of the stuff in the article can be sourced, the Florida Lupine news piece seems reliable enough and it gives more detail that this Wiki article whilst not being so overly promotional. So it is possible to improve the article, but also I think possible to show that the TDR are the official body for Tamaskans. The IPs trying to add unsourced content are all advocating their own versions of Tamaskans, even with their own names, but finding reliable sources for the significance of their claims would be impossible at this stage as none of those breeds have been established in any big way. I guess that's why they haven't tried adding any sources.

The article does have much room for improvement though, if you have identified particular ares you wish to modify then go for it! Weakopedia (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a tricky situation, but the majority of the people making the childish edits to the posts are not actually Tamaskan breeders, they have started up their own breeds called the Aatu Tamaskan and the Tamaskan Wolfdogs because they do not wish to follow the TDR's rules, these breeds are now entirely seperate from the Tamaskan Dog and contain different breeding dogs (and other breeds of dog, including mixing with wolfdogs). If it is they who are altering the content to suit their own needs and sell their own puppies through our good name then surely the real Tamaskan societies should be the ones linked to?

The TDR are the founders of the breed, they started it in the very begining so surely they have the upper hand when it comes to knowledge and being the 'true' authority. The other links go to breeders of Tamaskan Wolfdogs and Aatu Tamaskan, not breeders of real Tamaskan dogs at all, if you look at the fine print. --Exhaustfumes (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct in everything you say, but the uninvolved, non-expert reader has no way of knowing which are the "real Tamaskan societies" and which are the "mavericks". Nor do I. This is why a reliable source from a universally recognised authority is what this article needs more than anything. If this could be sourced, and if this mentions a recognised Tamaskan society, then we have the foundations of an article that couldn't be challenged or mucked around. But until then.. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The people adding Tamaskan have left a few sources, they may not be the best in the world but the Florida Lupine news, whilst being TDR sourced, is independant of the TDR and seems reasonable enough. In any event what Exhaustfumes says is verifiable, those advocating their own version of events all have their own name for the dogs they produce, like Aatu Tamaskan and Tamaskan Wolfdog, and they use these names to differentiate between their dogs (which do contain wolf blood) and TDR dogs (which don't). Their breeds may one day be deserving of a section in this article, but right now it is hard enough to find sources for the main Tamaskan breed let alone any sub-breeds as it has only been around a few years. With the burden of proof being on the one adding information it is unlikely that additions concerning Aatus and Wolfdogs should be acceptable anytime soon. Weakopedia (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Copies of other outside sources (such as Dogs Today magazine etc) listing the TDR as the official registering body can be found here http://www.tamaskan.eu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=842#p842 --94.10.254.78 (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm another outsider here -not a breeder, do not own a Tamaskan (yet), have no connection to this dispute.

It seems to me that the critics of this article who would like to have it deleted are misusing the Wikipedia content policies to suppress information about a topic that is controversial. The fact it is controversial is EVEN MORE REASON to have a wikipedia article on it, not a reason to get it deleted.

Realistically nobody expects wikipedia to be an absolutely reliable impartial source -just a convenient first stop for a general impression of a term that is new to them. Also it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA -not an enumeration of absolute realities, -if something is popularly discussed, basically if it exists in google's search index, then it 'exists' in the context and for the purposes of wikipedia.

Whether the 'breed' is KC registered is totally irrelevant to whether it should have a wikipedia article -but of course the article should include the fact that it is not yet registered, or whatever.

My personal opinion about whether the TDR has 'authority' to define a breed without being recognised by a 'higher' official body -that is blatant hierarchical politics speaking, and that way of (mis-)interpreting the wikipedia content policies is radically inconsistent with that fact it is an encyclopaedia created by the direct participation of all and any users in a principally egalitarian way. In my opinion authority is attributed by consensus not intrinsic or handed down from on high.

No. Many new clubs seek recognition by major kennel clubs then either implode due to internal strife or fade into oblivion because of loss of interest or excessive expenses or are denied membership by major kennel clubs. So if there is no difference why seek recognition?Sick Of Spin (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The UK Kennel Club has its own massive saga or controversies and questions over its legitimacy -because it purports to be concerned with animal health and welfare, but actually permits or defends knowingly irresponsible bad breeding practices to extreme levels -e.g. english bulldogs, KCS, are the clearest examples of 'conformation' that is really deformation causing serious chronic pain or suffering to a substantial proportion of dogs of those breeds, for trivial aesthetic reasons or traditionalism or profit. The UKC is in no position to 'authorise' anyone or anything from any 'moral high ground'.

It doesn't make sense to dispariage the major kennel clubs authority while simultaneously seek their recognition in the long term. The fact organizations have internal problems has no relevance to the fact they are widely respected and don't cater to one breed or group of breeders. 70.29.128.102 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a controversy over what 'Tamaskan' means, then wikipedia should contain a comprehensive DESCRIPTION of the controversies, not delete the article or pick and choose by profoundly subjective and politically partisan criteria what is an 'official' source.

Sometimes hardcore wikipedia editors get lost in their own little bubble I think -take a step back a moment and remember what function wikipedia actually has in the real world now -just a first stop for a general impression, nobody expects it to be ABSOLUTELY 'objective', whatever that means. It's better imo to have an imperfect article giving a general impression of what the word means than delete any imperfect articles or make too much fuss about nailing the 'objective' version of every last insider detail. Kester ratcliff (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have mistaken what Wiki is all about. We don't report controversies when the only people who find them controversial (or even talk about them) are the people causing the controversy. If you believe you can provide notability (and that means reliable sources) for your opinions then fix the article. But while there is no 'massive saga' to report from reliable third party sources, making an 'imperfect article' as you say would not be a service to our readers. If they want mindless speculation and rhumour with no reliable sources they can take up politics. Weakopedia (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If I have mistaken what wikipedia "IS" or what its most ardent editors wish it "should be", fine, you're welcome to it. But it's a real shame when articles which fulfill the purpose that ordinary people look to wikipedia for get deleted because of fanatically over-idealisic application of the content policies. I don't believe you actually read my whole comment above -presumably "tldr", it sounds like you're mistaking me for someone who has an opinion about the particular content of the article -I don't, as I said in my first sentence, I have no particular connect to the topic, I just find it REALLY IRRITATING when people delete wiki articles far too hastily for shortsighted reasons. Kester ratcliff (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No-one is asking for the article to be deleted, just to reflect what we can verify with reliable sources, so no need to get irritated. Just say aum. Weakopedia (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tuffy's breed

We've got contradictory sources for the breed of Tuffy, NC State's new live mascot.

• NBC17.com, a local TV station, says he's "a German Shepherd-Husky mix."[2]
• Gopack.com, the NC State athletics site, says he "is a Tasmaskan."[3]
• WRAL.com, another local TV station, has no stories in their archive.

Until more sources corroborate the breed, I've removed him from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted the Tamaskan Dog Register (the equvilent of the Kennel Club for the breed) and they have confirmed that Wave is a registered Tamaskan. If you would like to double check this you can email them yourself tamaskan.register@yahoo.com Exhaustfumes (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm content to wait until a reliable source is published, rather than conduct original research of my own. —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that if you check the websites you will see reliable sources (the founders of the breed) discussing Wave as a Tamaskan, also Waves own website http://www.gopack.com/graphics/html_files/tuffy-page/index.html confirms him as a Tamaskan Exhaustfumes (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Poisoning

I've removed the recent addition to the Famous Dogs section of a news story involving the alleged poisoning of some dogs. These dogs are not famous, so I do not see the relevance of this event in relation to this article or the section. The content also suggested the the police had a definite line of criminal investigation under way, something that none of the sources say. Indeed, most of the sources make it clear that the poisoning is alleged at this point, and not a definite crime. It's definitely not Wikipedia's place to even suggest otherwise.

The only way this story could be relevant to the article would be if sources make clear that the dogs' breed directly played a role in events. I don't see anything like this in the sources provided. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. PedanticSophist (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The dogs in question are the parents of Tuffy, the mascot of NCSU and so do have some celebrity status. Also the information about the line of criminal investigation came from the owners of the dogs themselves. Fish laced with antifreeze was placed behind a shed, buried and covered with leaves, this is a definate crime, someone would not trespass in someones yard and bury antifreeze on purpose now would they? ~~

Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia does not report on criminal investigations without reliable sources. Your theories and speculations are also not suitable content. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The poisoning IS a notable article to mention. It's been on the news not once but twice. The first being on the 2011 and the second on 2012 at around the same time. http://www.fox43tv.com/dpps/news/north_carolina/owner%3A-dogs-poisoned-intentionally_3789459

Here's the link from the second incident! http://wtkr.com/2012/05/04/five-dogs-poisoned-by-anti-freeze/

How can you say this is not notable when it's been an ongoing issue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.247.43 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The poisoning may be a noteable event to the persons whom the dogs belonged to or the community as a news event but it has nothing to do with the breed. Dogs of many breeds have had incidents over the years but there's no indication these events are breed related.Sick Of Spin (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Finnish? Umm...

Ok, I'm Finnish, and the Finns tend to be vocal of their original dog breeds. This article (and many of its sources) claim in passing that this breed originated from Finland. However I haven't heard of it before. The most elaborate explanation I've found ([4]) explains it this way: the foundation stock consisted of roughly half of Finnish dogs of varying pedigrees with a considerable number of UK dogs.

The Internet doesn't seem fo have anything in Finnish on them, only a forum post that goes like "so what is this Tamaskan thingy? The Enligh Wikipedia says it's a Finnish breed but I guess it's really rare here [in Finland]" and a handful of godawful auto-translated pages on godawful 100% auto-translated sited.

So how exactly is this breed of Finnish origin? Nothing I've read about them includes anything about the Finnish national kennel club so is this a backyard project gone wild? Pitke (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The founders of the breed imported English dogs into Finland, where they lived (although they are English) and bred them with Finnish dogs that they bought from Lapland. The Tamaskan Dog Register was first set up in 2006 and was run from their home in Finland. The first dogs sent to USA were exported from Finland and many dogs were also sent to breeders in the UK from Finland. It is arguable where exactly these dogs did originate from because the founders bought dogs from many countries and lived in many countries, including UK, Ireland, Portugal and Finland, so it could be any or all of these. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhaustfumes (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me from reading histories of other dog breeds, the nationality of a dog is determined not from where the ancestors came from but from where they were created and initially bred. It sounds in this case that they are of British origin as it seems the original breeding societies were British. It seems dubious to me for them to be called a Finnish breed. PedanticSophist (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Finnish-Racing Husky" label was intended to state that some of the foundation dogs used in Finland were generally husky-type crossbreeds and the TDR was established while the founders lived in Lapland. However, there is no such breed as a "Finnish Racing Husky" of which the dogs labelled as such came from the Polar Speed Kennel in Finland http://www.polarspeed.fi/19. --Nosferatuslayer (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)nosferatuslayer

The Tamaskan Dog Register was founded in 2006. In 2006 the founders of the breed were living in Finland and indeed the first litter of puppies born and registered under the Tamaskan name were in Finland. Plus the majority of foundation breeding stock were purchased from Finland, therefore it seems logical that Finland would be listed as their country of origin despite the fact that the founders of the breed are English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.115.114 (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarifiations and History

I believe the following should be added to the page for clarification:

1) Mention that Tamskan Dogs are not currently recognized by any kennel clubs. This will allow for continual updates on the stus of the breed with the AKC, UK Kennel Club, etc.

2) No mention of Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs are mentioned as dogs involved in the breeding program. This should be corrected.

3) The dreaded AATU word & TBA. Mention of the split between the TBA and TDR should be made in the history section. Slander should be avoided. Just attribute it to differences in breed direction and leave it at that.

Tmcook (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Trevor

There is no proof of Czech addition to the breed, to add that would be speculation and not fact, also a spilt between TDR and TBA need not be mentioned as the TBA is no classed itself as a seperate breed and so does not require mentioning on the Tamaskan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.115.114 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Slow Edit War

To the outsider there is no clear difference between the organisation hosted at http://www.tamaskan-dog.com and the one at http://www.tamaskan-dog.org. Despite being asked, editors with a preference for one or other have failed to provide any clear indication which is the "official" international organisation. Instead they have engaged in a slow edit war, each removing the other's links with a series of deceptively summarised edits.

Well that's enough. Both sets of editors have a clear conflict of interest in adding these links. If they cannot resolve the issue properly after years of being asked then it will be solved for them. I have listed both organisations for now and am minded to remove the lot in the near future on the grounds that there is no official organisation and these are little more than fansites.

Further disruptive editing or deceptive edits ("removing dead links", "updating links", "reverting vandalism") will result in the editors being reported for both edit warring and conflict of interest editing.

Otherwise I am happy to hear constructive suggestions on how to resolve this nonsense, preferably with reliable sources that can clear the matter up. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quick rundown of the past 4 months: The breed founders splintered off from the organization which they founded and have been doing their own thing for the past few months; they are 'tamaskan-dog.com'. Since they took the old domain with them, the remaining individuals on the committee registered the domain 'tamaskan-dog.org' and made another website. Neither party wants to acknowledge that there are two 'Tamaskan Dog Registers', simply because they believe that the other party is in the wrong and no longer exists.

As for finding 'reliable sources', good luck. While both websites contain information about the breed, they both have people who are emotionally involved in the issue. It's a shame, really. 129.21.80.99 (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. I suspected it was something like that, but you have shed a great deal of light on the situation. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To further clarify, when the former TDR Secretary resigned her position and the former TDR Chairman was ousted as a result of various international scandals pertaining to corruption (deliberate fraud and multiple cover-ups), the 'remaining individuals' on the TDR Committee legally registered the Tamaskan Dog Register (TDR) as an official company (registered in the UK: SC430781) and copyrighted the official TDR logos (registration number: 284660453) which are registered with the UK Copyright Service. As such, any copyright infringements or false impersonation will likely be taken very seriously and may result in legal repercussions. Anyone else, including former TDR Committee members, claiming to 'be' the TDR is actually practicing false representation, despite what they may personally believe or wish others to believe. Sylvaen (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All this suggests to me is that neither organisation have any "official" status or authority over the breed. They are just companies with commercial interests in the breed. In which case I'm minded to remove both companies, as the article is not about them. Their legal disputes are not Wikipedia's concern. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just done this. Happy to hear any input that demonstrates my thinking is incorrect. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but this statement is incorrect: "They are just companies with commercial interests in the breed." There is only ONE 'company' (the Tamaskan Dog Register) and it is legally registered as a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION (SC430781). The Tamaskan Dog Register (TDR) is an official registry that maintains an international database; it has no 'commercial interests' in the breed. Apart from the TDR, there are no other organizations with any "official" status or authority over the breed.Sylvaen (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem. You are denying the existence of the organization, which, although by your views is not official, still holds sway over the breed, especially if the people associated with this second organization are in fact the breed founders. Just because McDonald's sells cheeseburgers and doesn't like Burger King, doesn't make Burger King's cheeseburgers any less of a cheeseburger or change their importance. --Tikuko 23:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Tamaskan Dog Registry may well indeed be a non-profit organization but it s comprised of members who do sell dogs for a profit. So technically the organization may have no commercial interests but the individuals who comprise the organization do. Last time I checked they were not givng the dogs away for free. Sick Of Spin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sick Of Spin (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Tamaskan dog breed has not been offically recognized by any major kennel club so the only kind of official status the TDR has aquired is the use of their own logo and organization title for their registered non profit organization. What they do not have is official authorty to declare other breeder's dog as authentic or unauthentic. Oddly it seems strangely uncharacteristic for a non-profit organization to use their non-profit status for what feels almost like a power posturing attempt to monopolize.[[[User:Sick Of Spin|Sick Of Spin]] (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding [[W contribs) 00:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's basically what I was trying to say except worded better. --Tikuko 03:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The orginal TDR is that which was founded by the two original people involved since 2002, Lynn Hardey and Jennie Peacock. They were the first two people to buy in the foundation dogs and breed them together, they bred the first litter of Tamaskan and indeed gave the Tamaskan their name. They started the TDR in 2006 to keep a record of where their dogs were sold and any future litters from future breeders. In 2012 some new committee members attempted to get rid of the two founders with a scandel, with little or no basis in truth (but the truth of the matter is irrelevant here). They claimed that they now owned the TDR, yet a meeting was never held to remove the founders and letters of dismissal were never received, they simply started a new website and attempted to copyright the TDR name. As far as the founders are concerned they are still running the same TDR that they started in 2006, albiet with a new committee. The 'new' TDR believe that they are the 'old' TDR as they confiscated it from the founders. However all the records, monies, websites and properties remain in the possesion of the orginal TDR and its founders. Its anyones guess which should be the official TDR, although it would make sense to me that it should be the original committee and not the 'new' .org which has little to no records (only those that they have managed to piece together through their members), its really just a new website with a committee and little else. I vote that all reference to any of the societies be removed to end any edit wars, including the reference links to pictorials standards etc unless they are linked to a neutral website outside of the breed societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.123.184 (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that calling it a "scandal" whether you believe what was said or not, and accusing any group of "confiscating" anything from one another is clearly biased. Terming these things as such provides nothing to the article other than opinion, speculation, and bias. I think that if the split of organizations is to be mentioned, it should be as unbiased as possible and only to inform people and reduce confusion as to who the different groups breeding Tamaskans are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.79.55 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, perhaps the Tamaskan page could be similar in format and wording to the Northern Inuit page, which talks about splinter groups and such in a non-biased and purely informative way. That page states: "Over the years various groups have split from the original Northern Inuit Society to form their own breed groups.[citation needed] These have included The Inuit Dog Association, The British Timber dog, Anglo Wulfdog, The British Inuit Dog Club, and The Utonagan Society; the latter has also now splintered into different groups.[citation needed] None of these clubs have been accepted by larger organizations such as the British Kennel Club." And while yes, there are needed citations in places on the Northern Inuit page, I think such a format could benefit the Tamaskan page to be informative without being biased and perhaps even stop the edit war by simply stating things without talking about why splits happened or delving into breeder and community opinions or showing preference to any one society or group over another. In this way, you could mention the TBA, the two TDRs, and even the TCA without getting into a blame game or starting a riot. I do think having the information is important to the page and perhaps will help people understand what these different groups are and that they are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.79.55 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

As a concern was raised during AfD about the quality of the references, I am going to mark all references to the Tamaskan Dog Registry and any references directly affiliated with that cite as dubious, pending removal - they should all be removed. It would stop this ridiculous edit war; these references are also considered unreliable, because as far as I understand the consensus is that breed clubs are only recognized as a reliable source if they are recognized by a larger governing body (ARBC, AKC, KC, what have you). I removed them once but another editor replaced them, which is fine - I'd just like to put my concerns out there.--TKK ^{bark !} 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the dubious tag. I do support a tag noting that the source may not be reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I updated the media reference links from the "registration required" links to the "public access" links so that everyone can access and read the magazine articles without having to register and sign-in on the forum. Sylvaen (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, that helps quite a bit actually.--TKK ^{bark !} 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tamaskan Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160122135654/http://www.tamaskan-club.de/presse.html to http://www.tamaskan-club.de/presse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tamaskan 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/20101202021242/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/2010/09/18/687991/tuffys-tryout-at-game-pleases.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/18/687991/tuffys-tryout-at-game-pleases.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dog or dog?

Article titled "Tamaskan Dog", but starts with "Tamaskan dogs are" and top image captioned "A Tamaskan dog". Should this article be moved to "Tamaskan dog" (lowercase d)? (Similar to Fraser's dolphin, Grizzly bear, Barak hound, etc.) --EarthFurst (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Undo merger from Northern Inuit

The Tamaskan Dog is a distinct breed which is recognized by the American Rare Breed Association.

Specifically, they're under Group 5 on ARBA"s website: https://www.arba.org/Pages/gallery-group-5-breeds.htm

And here is the breed standard, also on ARBA's website: http://arba.org/PDF%20Files/Group%20Five/Tamaskan%20Dog%20Breed%20Standard.pdf

Wouldn't this fit the requirements for the Tamaskan Dog to be moved back to its own article?

(copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Inuit_Dog#Undo_merger_from_Tamaskan_Dog)