Talk:Dog

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fullerb (article contribs).

Lead Section

Lead section has excessive details and links for the opening paragraphs. It also makes it difficult to follow (13 ref in the first paragraph alone). However, it is fairly short for the length of the article and could be expanded. Cats lead is a good reference, no irony intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russty11 (talk • contribs)

User:Russty11, it is good practice to WP:SIGNATURE and date-stamp your posts on a talk page. There are 13 refs in the lead because the Dog page is one of the most contentious on Wikipedia and even fully cited material gets deleted from time to time, which is why the article is semi-protected. Regarding excessive links, WP:LEADLINK applies and in my view these should all be removed - the lead should be an overview of what can be found in the text, and that text should contain those links. Any ideas on improvement or flow would be well-received. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Russty11: What specific changes (changing X -> Y) would you like to see made? If you are autoconfirmed already, then be bold, and make the change (but don't be reckless). If you are not autoconfirmed, then submit an edit request and I, or another editor will be happy to take a look at it and/or make the change. Morphdog^fire 02:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry that a few of my earlier edits to the opening paragraph were a bit reckless. My newest edit was just to clarify that dogs are "the most abundant and widely distributed terrestrial carnivore" as many aquatic carnivores are much more abundant than any terrestrial carnivore. Achat1234 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the vonHoldt et al. reference in the introduction is misplaced. This is a single, prospective study. Because it's dog-related it got lots of attention in the press. That doesn't make it a consensus view. A careful reading of vonHoldt et al. suggests less than meets the eye. A single SNP on an allele corresponding to an area of the genome where, if an entire stretch of alleles are deleted, it triggers Williams Syndrome. Structural variants common to the general population. The main point of interest is a lack of hetereozygosity in the dog area, compared to wolves and humans. This suggests it's a zone of positive selection. But that's a long way from the speculation that dogs bear the stamp of Williams (hypersocial, intellectually diminished.) Also, it misrepresents Williams, in which hypersocial is an appearance due to "sticky gaze", induced by microsaccade problems. Dogs don't display problems with vision.BrianMC

Dogs in Australia

The study by UWA and ANU suggests people formed close bonds with dingoes soon after the dogs' arrival on the mainland roughly 4000 years ago, with the dogs enabling women to contribute more hunted food. 2015 study. I think this information should be added to the article. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you would be better directed to the Dingo article. Secondly and unfortunately for the study you provided, dingoes appear to have walked to Australia over 8,000 years ago, at least twice, when it was connected to New Guinea at a time when sea levels were lower. DOI: 10.1007/s10709-016-9924-z Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The cited article (doi:10.1007/s10709-016-9924-z "New insights on the history of canids in Oceania based on mitochondrial and nuclear data") suggests multiple immigrations of dingo varieties to Australia from New Guinea, but it does not say 8,000 years ago. It says they may have arrived by land, but perhaps by sea. Goustien (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To quote directly from the article: "The two dingo lineages are estimated to have split 8300 years BP and the mean tip-calibrated estimate for the divergence between the SE dingo lineage and the NGSD is 7800 years BP. These dating estimates suggest that it is plausible dingoes and the NGSD diverged in Sahul before dingoes ultimately spread into Australia through the land bridge." Additionally, "Australia and Papua New Guinea were once joined by a land bridge forming the continent of Sahul. Approximately 6500–8500 years BP." Therefore, the time-frame is between 8,300 YBP to 7,800 YBP for the northwestern dingoes - else they would have appeared in the NGSD split, which they did not. That is well before 4,000 YBP, and we know that lupus can disperse over 1,000k in one year. William Harris • (talk) • 04:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Entymology and Terminology - Duplicative

I've noticed that the Terminology section seems largely duplicative of Entymology's final paragraph. I haven't kept close watch on this article but think that's a recent development. Do we still need Terminology? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I decided to delete Terminology. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding a subtopic under 'Health'

Hi there, I just wanted to run by the idea of adding an additional subtopic under the title 'Health' regarding nutrients that help to promote healthy skin.(Paigeannison (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC))

Error in scientific name authority

In the infobox the scientific name synonym is presently given as Canis familiaris (Linnaeus, 1758). This is incorrect, the parentheses around the authority imply that the species has been reclassified (moved to a different genus) since Linnaeus described it, which is not the case. The correct citation is Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758. If no-one has any objection I will change it to the correct form after a few days for comment. Tony 1212 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The brackets need to stay; that is the convention here on Wikipedia. Please refer

By the way the current trinomial name as presented (Canis lupus familiaris) should also have the authority cited as Linnaeus, 1758 - the author of the name "familiaris" is the same whether treated as a species or subspecies (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, principle of coordination). Tony 1212 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your second point based on the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy. Canis familiaris is the dog's name given in nomenclature in 1758 and cannot be changed, apart from a ruling by the ICZN. However, Wozencraft is the authority who in 2005 classified the dog's taxonomy (i.e. its "description" or "placed with") as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of a wolf - a taxonomic classification that remains disputed. Linnaeus had no say in that. William Harris • (talk) • 08:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"The brackets need to stay; that is the convention here on Wikipedia" Absolutely not; the brackets need to go. This is a nomenclatural convention, not a Wikipedia convention. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Organisms#Sources_and_authorities (second to last paragraph of that section). The authority used in the taxobox is the nomenclatural authority that originally described the taxon, not the taxonomic authority responsible for the latest treatment. When a species is not placed in its original genus, the nomenclatural authority is bracketed. When the species is included in the original genus, brackets are omitted. Wikipedia does get the brackets wrong sometimes because editors don't realize their significance, or because they are following sources that present data in a way where the bracket convention need not be followed (Mammal Species of the World is one such source). But there is no reason for Wikipedia to intentionally override this convention. Plantdrew (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree and that partial sentence should have been removed when I posted the comment further below. I went looking for where I thought a reference was but could not find one, then got side-tracked. That is why it is a partial sentence referring to nothing. William Harris • (talk) • 08:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the incorrect brackets around author names also occur in the section "Taxonomy" i.e. "(Linnaeus, 1758)" (several instances) and "(Meyer, 1793)" (same). Brackets should be removed in all cases. In fact the in the third sentence, currently "He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris (Linnaeus, 1758) and on the next page as a separate species he classified the wolf as Canis lupus (Linnaeus, 1758).", the authorities are unnecessary: the concept of quoting authors in this manner was not standardised in Linnaeus' time or in his work (at least for new names) and Linnaeus would not have cited his own name in any case; this would be a convention applied by later authors. (Note: you can see the original page at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25033830 if you need to confirm this...) I would suggest this sentence simply read: "He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris and on the next page as a separate species he classified the wolf as Canis lupus." Can someone fix this/these please? I would do so myself but don't think I have the privileges. Tony 1212 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Actioned, apart from the Wozencraft MSW3 section where this was his quote. William Harris • (talk) • 12:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks William Harris... just noticed there are still some brackets to remove in the "Taxonomy" section: in paragraph 4: "Given that Canis familiaris (Linnaeus, 1758) has date priority over Canis dingo (Meyer, 1793), they regard the dingo as a junior taxonomic synonym for the dog Canis familiaris.[42] Gheorghe Benga and others support the dingo as a subspecies of the dog from the earlier Canis familiaris dingo (Blumenbach, 1780).[45][46][47]" - all brackets should be removed.

Also I note, the Blumenbach dates appear to be erroneous (originating from ITIS); I have checked and Blumenbach, 1779-1780 contains no reference to the dingo (relevant page is at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44318937), neither does Blumenbach, 1797; the earliest reference appears to be Blumenbach, 1799, which I believe is why this name is not cited either in MSW or in ICZN Opinion 451, being a later name than Canis dingo Meyer, 1793. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, I think the final sentence of the preceding paragraph should also be deleted, namely: "Although the earliest use of the name "dingo" was Canis familiaris dingo (Blumenbach, 1780),[40] Wozencraft attributed it to Meyer from 1793 without comment.[41]" I will send a note to the Taxacom mailing list (on which ITIS is a contributor) to alert them about the apparent error and see if there is any response. I also note that similar incorrect use of brackets can be found on the page dingo (perhaps contributed by the same person); either you or I can fix these as a separate exercise. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: names and dates - I think that covers it.

Re: Blumenbach, the reference I have under the article Dingo is this, which a contact on German Wikipedia supplied and interpreted for me. We have two sources with scanned copies that are different. Mine resides in the Kais kön. Hofbibliothek in Vienna. Unclear why there is a difference. William Harris • (talk) • 04:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi William, thanks for chasing this further... the Blumenbach reference you cite does contain the name dingo (as Canis familiaris dingo) but is from the 1799 edition of his Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, so post-dates its introduction by Meyer, available here: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27654915. I have checked the 1779-80 and 1797 editions of Blumenbach's work and neither contain the name, so I am presuming this is the earliest mention of the word, i.e. the concept of "Blumenbach 1780" for this name does not originate here and is most likely spurious. As mentioned above, I will broach this on Taxacom and see if others agree with this interpretation. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, well done. Several references cite Blumenback 1780 - your finding has upset the apple cart! I shall wait for your further enquiry; then I guess I will have to rewrite the Dingo section "Taxonomy"...... William Harris • (talk) • 08:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Tony, I have now amended the article as we have discussed elsewhere. Thanks for providing your advanced taxonomic knowledge. William Harris • (talk) • 11:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

References

"The dog is the first species to be domesticated" should be "The dog was the..."

"The dog is the first species to be domesticated and has been selectively bred over millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes." This is the third sentence of the page. I feel it should be "The dog was the first species to be domesticated [...]" as this tense is more correct when describing what a first of something was. 27.131.42.126 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (public organization IP).

 Done GMG^talk 10:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Not only the dog WAS the first domesticate, but it still IS the first domesticate, unless you can provide the name of its replacement. William Harris • (talk) • 07:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@William Harris. Why are you using the verb "domesticate" as a noun? The proper noun is "domestication". If something "was the first to be domesticated", then it still is and will always be, unless someone changes history, which isn't implied in any way. We are not talking about the "first lady" here or some annual ranking. The difference between "is" and "was" is that "is" reads like from a newspaper article discussing a novel invention. "Was" should be used as the domestication of canis lupus occurred a very long time ago. 104.234.248.55 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A domesticate is an organism that has gone through the process of domestication. Plantdrew (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User 104.234.248.55 - look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. William Harris • (talk) • 11:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are we arguing over this? The passage says "was...domesticated" which is grammatically correct. I'm not sure it should use "is a domesticate" at all, which is comparatively archaic wording and fairly obvious how it would be easily confusing for readers, even if it's technically correct. GMG^talk 12:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no argument. An editor asked why I used the correct term "domesticate" and told us that in his view its usage is incorrect, and I replied. At no stage did I propose the use of the term domesticate, that is your assumption. The word is often used in the domestication literature. William Harris • (talk) • 20:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

207.28.100.93 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

its a dog

 Not done No request was made. GMG^talk 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Specific point and general request

Diet - the section on diet says that all-meat diet is not recommended because it's low in iron. Animal flesh being low in iron is ludicrous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron#Food_sources This should be looked into and changed. The reference is to a wayback machine storage of a site that is not a scientific reference in the first place, very shady stuff. It's a heavily used reference in the article, and I think that looks odd given the fact that it appears to be a special interest site rather than a scientific one. 98.184.198.24 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

Dogs Are The Best Pet 71.115.226.62 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No, that'd be cats. In all seriousness, though: Please state your request in a "please change X to Y because Z" format or "please add X in Y location because Z" format, giving a reason that is based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources or on site policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Dog charities

I wondered why my reference to Bravehound and Hounds for Heroes was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigojones666 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Indigojones666. Dennis may be able to explain in more detail what they were thinking in particular, but I'd probably agree with the revert overall. The scope of this article is basically all dogs everywhere for all of recorded history. There are surely many thousands of organizations in the world somehow related to dogs, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to mention this one in particular, as opposed to many others, many of which I'm sure have a longer history and may be of overall greater historical importance. GMG^talk 16:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course that makes sense my apologies; Bravehound was an orphan so I was trying to find some parents! Regards Garry

Indigojones666, I see List of charities in China and List of water-related charities both exist. It may be appropriate to have a List of charities in the United Kingdom, or maybe a List of dog-related charities assuming there's enough related subjects that already have their own Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 16:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I will take a look. On another note: When I first put forward Bravehound  Legacypac thought it was too advertorial - which it was. However, I have re-added this reference (see below) in the Bravehound History section as it links to another Wiki article where Glen art are already mentioned…

“and a 2016 memorial concert celebrating the life of Sir Nicholas Winton in support of Syrian refugees”.

http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/concert-celebrating-sir-nicholas-winton-to-raise-funds-for-syrian-refugees/ http://www.bcu.ac.uk/conservatoire/about-us/news/sir-nicholas-winton

Is that ok?

Well, Indigojones666, I'd say that first and foremost the goal of Articles for Creation is to weed out articles that are likely to be deleted, and this doesn't seem terribly like it might obviously need to be. I'd say you do get off in the weeds some talking about MacDonald and Art in a way that isn't really on topic as far as the charity directly, and I would recommend removing those bits. I would also seriously consider rewriting the section to take out the names of the recipients of the services. If people are themselves relatively unknown we generally want to avoid mentioning them by name in articles for privacy reasons. So, it's possible, maybe likely that they might not necessarily want everyone for all time to know that they struggled enough with PTSD or other mental health issues enough to qualify for services. Other than that, I'd just say keep on writing, and revisit it in six months or a year and see if you've learned anything in that time that can better improve the article. GMG^talk 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good points thanks very much Garry

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

162.246.158.210 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

the dog is a great companion when you don't have anyone to live your life with or if you just want to have a fraind

 Not done: It's Wikipedia, WP:NOTAHALLMARKCARD. Spintendo      16:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Conversely, the dog is a companion when you do have someone to live your life with and you don't need a friend! William Harris • (talk) • 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources for spiked collars on dogs being used to protect from predator animals like wolves.

In the competators section there is a claim that Dog collars were created to defend Dogs from wolves. https://www.dogcollarsboutique.com/A-History-of-Dog-Collars-sp-17.html This first article quotes the same piece of information stated in this Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_collar This page has a couple references that support the idea as well as two sources that do the same. Perhaps the two should be linked together with a hyperlink from this page leading to the other?

(Signed and dated for archive purposes only.) William Harris • (talk) • 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

The page was vandalized to redirect to Gray wolf. This should be reverted. C0dd (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK _Discuss 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Reproduction

The article states that it is possible for a female to mate with more than one male. I think that is a given. What it probably aims to say is that females can successfully mate with more than one male resulting in pups of different fathers being born in one litter. 51.7.211.207 (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Updated. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Doggo Language?

I was wondering if someone wants to bring the Doggo language to this page? https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/23/524514526/dogs-are-doggos-an-internet-language-built-around-love-for-the-puppers

• Bod (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article says much about humans but nothing about dogs. William Harris • (talk) • 11:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)