Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Generic

I have just taken a quick look at the new page, and I still think that linking the ISSR with the *other* "registries" is deceitful! This makes it sound like they are all the same :>(

<< The breed now has multiple registries, including, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA). There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs, the Shilohs Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA) and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC). For further information on all of the above Registries and Clubs please use the external links section of this article >>

I am also amazed that ALL of the other "registries" are not listed??? If you are going to do *some* .. why not ALL?

I will try to write up something a bit more honest tonight. Tina M. Barber 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 I AGREE WITH MS. BARBER. IF YOU ARE GOING TO LIST ANY, OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL REGISTRY,
 THEN YOU MUST LIST THEM ALL. THERE AGAIN I MUST SAY TO LIST ALL THE REGISTRIES THAT WILL  
 ALLOW A SHILOH TO BE LISTED IS NOT AN ACCURATE ACCOUNTING TO THE PUBLIC. 
 TO WHICH YOU ARE SERVING.

67.141.45.154 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

UPDATE

I don't have time for another long post, but I would like to share a site that you can use. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/shilohshepherd.htm

This site also includes

ARBA = American Rare Breed Association APRI = American Pet Registry Inc. NKC = National Kennel Club

However, my research has proven that many other "registries" are also selling papers for Shiloh Shepherds!! These include, but are not limited to .....

Other All-Breed Registries:

The following is a list of some of the other all-breed registries in existence in North America — Caution should be exercised when dealing with a breeder who registers with any of these registries, especially when the breed is recognized by any of the major all-breed registries listed above. Many breeders use these registries because they are not able to meet the more demanding requirements of the CKC, AKC, or UKC.

The information shown in quotations was taken directly from the registry's web site and speaks for itself as to the goals of some of these registries.

American Canine Association (ACA) — "America's largest veterinary health tracking purebred canine registry." — Note: In the "Find A Puppy" section of their website, dog/puppy seekers are referred to pet/retail stores. Very little information is available on the website regarding their goals or mission as a registry.

American Purebred Registry (APR) — The APR issues registration certificates for dogs and cats. They start a pedigree file with the information the owner sends them. Once APR accepts an application, a registration certificate is issued and the animal is considered registered. APR is a record keeping agency only and does not sponsor dog shows, field trials or competitions of any kind. On the application, the owner certifies that the dog or cat is a purebred representative of the breed. They take the owner's word for it and no proof is required.

America's Pet Registry Inc. (APRI) — "An internationally recognized association of responsible pet owners, breeders, distributors, veterinarians, retailers, pet product manufacturers, and other concerned parties dedicated to the humane care of animals, the preservation of quality bloodlines, and the individual's right of pet ownership." APRI recently re-incorporated as a for-profit corporation. — The APRI promotes and encourages the sale of dogs and cats through distributors and retailers. "America's Pet Registry, Inc. was begun as insurance for the pet industry..." "APRI offers free dual registrations on dogs from reputable registration services to professional breeders. We classify a professional breeder as one who has three or more breeding females and who regularly sells puppies in the pet market."

Animal Registry Unlimited (ARU) — Some statements found on the opening page of their website: "We register all pets and animals." "We guarantee that your pet or animal can be registered with us." "Providing a registry for the development of new breeds of useful pets and animals. Unlike many organizations we encourage the development of new breeds."

Continental Kennel Club (CKC) — Note: This registry is also known as the CKC and should not be confused with the Canadian Kennel Club — These are two completely separate registries.) — The Continental Kennel Club recognizes 450 breeds as purebred. The Continental Kennel Club has a section known as "Miscellaneous Breed Registration" which allows for the crossing of two purebred parents of different breed types to produce hybrid puppies. Registered as MISC/BREED1-BREED2 and isolated from purebred registrations, they are distinguished from other breeds on registration certificates by having "non-purebred" printed on their registration certificates. In addition, the Continental Kennel Club has a section within their club for developing new breeds. Stock used for these breeding programs is listed in the "Development Class". The Continental Kennel Club has implemented a classified section on their site where club members can advertise their breeds. If you have a look at some of the more popular breeds such as the Cocker Spaniel, some of the kennels advertising there include breeders of cock-a-poos and other crosses. The Continental Kennel Club's website provides very little information regarding their goals or mission as a registry. For more information, however, there is a very thorough web page at: Continental Kennel Club FAQ. - Continental Kennel Club Rules & Regulations

Dog Registry of America (DRA) — (Formerly the US Kennel Club) Statements directly from the Registry's home page: "DRA Registers rare breeds and exotic breeds. DRA Registers 'Unrecognized Breeds'" "DRA registers poodle crosses such as cocker-poos, peke-a-poo's as a separate class DRA takes the red tape out of registration."Tired of registration & documentation hassles? Starting your own blood line? Lost or never had papers? Developing new breeds? Breed not recognized? DRA Registers all purebred dogs. Federation of International Canines (FIC) — (Not to be confused with the FCI - Fédération Cynologique Internationale) — From the FIC's website: "A registry founded for the preservation and continuation of all native dog breeds, in their pure forms, from all countries around the world. Currently recognizing over four hundred breeds, the FIC acknowledges the very rare as well as the better known breeds." Additional information found on the website: "The FIC is a complete registry service including, registration of individual dogs, registration of litters, certified pedigrees, sanctioned shows and matches, and conformation championships. Working titles (obedience, tracking, good citizenship, agility, dog sport, temperament test, etc.) are awarded and may be earned at all FIC shows and all shows sanctioned by the FIC. "The FIC offers special registration programs for breeds which are still in the developmental stage." "The FIC's goal is to work with breeders and owners, not against them, providing registration services that they can depend on. All paperwork is handled promptly. "Multiple dog registration discounts are available." — Offering a special discount for volume breeders.

International Progressive Dog Breeders' Alliance (IPDBA) — "IPDBA, founded in 1996 is the first registry of its kind, uniting breeders and enthusiasts of all breeds of dogs in one unique registry. The IPDBA is composed of Chartered Breed Associations. Each Chartered Breed Association has full control of their breed standard and the requirements for registration. The founders of the International Progressive Dog Breeders' Alliance believe that the breeding of all animals is an art form, and as such, breeders should have the freedom to express themselves and their vision for their breed(s) in their breeding programs." "The IPDBA currently recognizes more than 550 new and old breeds of dogs, making it the largest all-breed registry in the world." "IPDBA recognizes all breeds recognized for championship competition in at least one other association which has been established for the purposes of registration and exhibition of all breeds. IPDBA may accept any new breed regardless of ancestry for registration purposes provided it meets the criteria of being phenotypically different from an existing recognized breed. Acceptance may be denied if there is sound scientific evidence that there are inherent genetic problems deleterious to the health of the dogs in question which cannot be eliminated though selective breeding. Non-purebred dogs are not eligible for registration unless registered as a foundation for a breed."

National Kennel Club (NKC) — "Since 1970 the National Kennel Club (NKC) has operated to help dog owners register any purebred dog. The NKC has been fair and impartial to all breeders, dog owners, and the various breeds they represent. With the NKC rare breeds may be shown with equal status as well as the major breeds. The NKC licenses all-breed dog shows, events for Coon Dogs, Beagles, Squirrel Dogs, Bird dogs, Fox dogs, Licensed Dog Kennels, Show Judges, and other dog related-events."

North American Purebred Dog Registry (NAPDR) — "The NAPDR will register all breeds of dogs. Over 300 breeds of dogs are eligible to be registered with the NAPDR. A purebred dog that does not have registration papers may be registered with the NAPDR." If you are not 100% sure of the dog's breed, you need to send in a side view picture with the registration application. A "commercial rate" is available to breeders of five or more adult dogs of breeding age and who sell puppies.

United All Breed Registry (UABR) — "[United] is a registry service so unique that it has received two U.S. Patents, and is used to register individual animals, breeding stock, and litters; and will compliment any other registry service from the rare breeds to the AKC breeds." The UABR promotes the sale of pets through retailers — from their "About Us" page: "UNITED recommends consumers looking for a pet be advised by professional retailers who can help them make a more informed decision and can match the right breed to their situation." and "UNITED promotes retailers as a reliable source of healthy pets. We sight the "Source of Acquisition Study" published in the "Journal Of The American Veterinary Medical Association" as factual documentation that the health of puppies purchased from retailers are equal and in many ways superior to those attained from other sources."

Universal Kennel Club International (UKCI) — The following comes directly from the registry's "about us" page: "Universal specializes in registering purebred canines of all breeds and fully servicing their needs. We also register poos, hybrids and rarebreeds under special registration programs. Universal is becoming a leader in many areas of the pet industry..." and from other sections of the web site: "Universal Unique Registry System for any pure breed dog that for whatever reason is not registered in a litter or either of its sire/dam were not registered with any registry or if perhaps for whatever reason you were denied registry and your dog is at least one year old." Universal also provides bulk discounts to breeders.

World Kennel Club (WKC) — "The WKC® registers all dogs that are pure-bred only, which may or may not be registered with any other kennel club or those that have no previous history of their Sire or Dam." — Very little information is available on the website.

World Wide Kennel Club (WWKC) — "WWKC's objectives include a policy to adopt and enforce uniform rules and regulations for the improvement of all breeds. It addresses people interested in exhibiting, breeding, registering, purchasing, and selling dogs. All rules and regulations have been designed to encourage and protect the interest of its members..." "WWKC is a major registry service; registering purebred, pedigreed dog breeds, including international and rare breeds..." "The World Wide Kennel Club, Ltd. encourages breed improvement by requiring the same basic adherence to breed standards as other registry services require. However, WWKC goes one step further by offering International Registrations for all countries. WWKC recognizes and is willing to work with all registries and Clubs that are working toward the improvement of any breed. Owners of any dog registered with any other registry are invited to register and exhibit in all WWKC dog shows and obedience trials." "The WWKC recognizes all registries." "Any purebred, new breed or rare breed dog eligible for registration in any kennel club will be eligible for registration in WWKC." THE ABOVE DOCUMENTATION WAS TAKEN FROM http://canadasguidetodogs.com/breedregistries.htm Tina M. Barber 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH INCLUDING ALL REGISTRIES THAT WILL REGISTER THE SHILOH SHEPHERD
IF YOU ARE GOING TO LIST ANY OTHER THAN THE ISSR ! REASON BEING SEEMS SIMPLE TO ME. 
THE ISSR HAS ALL THE DATA AND DOCUMENTATION. NO OTHER REGISTRY DOES. SO ANY REGISTRY OTHER
THAN THE ISSR CANNOT ACCURATELY REGISTER THE SHILOH. WHERE IS THE DATA FOR ANCESTOR LINEAGE?
MS. BARBERS REQUEST THEREFORE IS REASONABLE AND ACCURATE. 
PLEASE DON'T LIST ANY OTHER REGISTRY BESIDE OR ALONG WITH THE ISSR.
IF THE ARTICLE IS GOING TO, THEN LIST THEM ALL.

 67.141.45.154 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

re:UPDATE

This TB post is particularly amusing because the FIC (not to be confused with the international renowned “FCI”) is the very FIRST organization Tina Barber approached in search of Shiloh Shepherd breed recognition in 1990. Yet, she ‘includes’ their criteria listed under the DRA (http://www.dogpapers.com/) as some kind of ‘evidence’ that she’s above this supposed dubious registry? It was the FIC that originally gave her GSD’s “unique” status in the first place! The FIC organization failed but reformed again. In the interim, their recognition of the Shiloh Shepherd opened the doors to breed recognition by the ARBA (http://www.arba.org/) shortly thereafter.

ARBA (http://www.arba.org/) is likely THE most significant rare breed organization in North America. TB should be grateful for her Breed and Breed Standard (http://www.arba.org/ShilohShepherd1BS.htm) to have been accepted by them in 1991. ARBA (http://www.arba.org/index.htm) has always remained an objective show organization, veering away from ‘breed politics’ while enlisting international judges to critique breed entries as per All Individual Standards. This is not, nor has it even been, a group of amateurs.

The only other registry listed which I’m aware of Shiloh Shepherds being registered with is the NKC. (http://www.nationalkennelclub.com/) This is a well respected dog club, and Shiloh Shepherd registration with this club is simply for the purpose of show events. Shiloh Shepherds who show at NKC events MUST be registered with them. This is simply ‘their rule’. But this does not negate nor hinder a dogs registration with any but one of the ‘Shiloh specific’ registries, that being the ISSR/SSDCA. All other registries accept dual registration for the purposes of SHOW with the NKC.

I am surprised that the founder would choose to post a link to http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/shilohshepherd.htm . Clearly the webmaster of this site has less than flattering comments in the “Origin” paragraph. I sympathize with this webmaster. He/she has apparently experienced enough discord with the breed founder to result in the writing of an article which indulges the breed founder no specific credit for the breed at all.

Is there such a thing as a Freudian Link?

Good luck to your arbitrators.

Shiloh Supporter

re:generic/UPDATE

I'm unclear on Tina Barber's point here. The point in question for the Wiki article is whether her registry, the ISSR, should be given more status as a registry than the TSSR, NSBR, or SSBA. But she just goes on trying to prove that there are other registries out there that will register Shiloh Shepherds. That has nothing to do with the article. The list of registries that she provides are not recognized as the more legitimate all- breed registries such as AKC, UKC, CKC, FCI, but neither is her own ISSR. As a matter of fact, the paperwork for the ISSR is processed and printed by one of the ISSR's top breeders in their home, after being edited by the breed founder herself. If anything, TB's posts just further prove the point of the non-ISSR people, that ISSR is no more recognized by any true all-breed registry than TSSR, NSBR, or SSBA.

Gloria 4.248.44.59 14:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

YOU ARE CORRECT GLORIA. SHOULD THE ISSR BE GIVEN EXCLUSIVITY 
OR MORE STATUS THAN ALL OTHER REGISTRIES, THAT REGISTER SHILOHS?
THE ANSWER AGAIN IS QUITE SIMPLE;  "YES" WHY? WHAT OTHER REGISTRY HAS THE DATA AND   
DOCUMENTATION TO PROPERLY AND ACCURATELY REGISTER THE SHILOH? THEREFORE MS. BARBERS STATEMENT  
OF ALLOWING(THEREBY ACKNOWLEDGING) ANY OTHER REGISTRY BUT THE ISSR IS FRAUDULENT TO THE  
CONSUMER. THAT IS THE POINT "WIKI" SHOULD BE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND LISTEN TO. 
THE "WIKI" IS HERE TO BE AN ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE, HONEST AVENUE FOR THE PUBLIC 
TO COME TO FOR INFORMATION. ALLOWING OTHER "SELECTED REGISTRIES" 
WHO CANNOT POSSIBLY RIGISTER ANY SHILOH WITH ACCURACY OF LINEAGE IS LUDECRIS.

67.141.45.154 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

As has been requested multiple times, please provide any source or reference for these claims. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

HI JARETH, MS. BARBER HAS PROVIDED MANY SOURCES OF REFERENCES. 
ONLY TO HAVE YOU ASK FOR THE IMPOSIBBLE, A THIRD PARTY VERIFIABLE REFERENCE. 
WHAT THIRD PARTY CAN SUBSTANTIATE THE RECORDS OF THE AKC? OR THE UKC? OR ANY OF THE KENNELL 
CLUB REGISTRATIONS. HOW ABOUT THE DULY ELECTED BOARD MEMBERS OF THE ISSR? WOULD THEIR 
TESTIMONIAL SUFFICE? LET ME ASK YOU THIS, IF  THIRD PARTY VERIFIABLE RESOURCES ARE WHAT YOU 
ARE LOOKING FOR TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS OF THE ISSR, THEN WHY NOT ASK THE OTHER REGISTRIES 
THE SAME? THEY CANNOT PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION AND DATA WITH ANY HISTORY OR ACCURACY ON THE  
DOGS THEY ARE REGISTERING. AGAIN, IF THIS CANNOT BE PROVIDED BY EITHER PARTIES IN DISPUTE TO 
YOUR SATISFACTION, THEN LIST ALL REGISTRIES AS MS. BARBER HAS SUGGESTED. WITH SOME 
INVESTIGATION AND READING ON THE PART OF AN ARBITRATION BOARD OR JUDGE, I BELIEVE THAT YOU 
WOULD FIND COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE MANY CLAIMS THAT THE ISSR AND SSDCA TO HAVE
MADE. HISTORY, CONSISTENCY AND MAGNITUDE ALONE WOULD BE ENOUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO 
CONVINCE EVEN THE MOST SKEPTICAL.

72.1.70.194 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

Actually I can find quite a few third party sources for AKC data -- about their museum [1], detailed info on the charity they run [2], their recognized breeds [3], encylopedia entries [4], court cases [5] and honestly, that's without even trying - I hadn't even started on newspaper references yet. So the fact is that most subjects notable enough for inclusion in an encylopedia have sources to rely on other than their own statements.

The fact is that anyone can become a registry. So maybe what we need to look at here is the question of notability. The ISSR was obviously the founding registry and should be noted as such. Are there any compelling reasons to include other registries? There's certainly no reason to attack them in the article, but perhaps they should just be linked in the external links section or perhaps not included at all. Back to the German Shepherd example, they do list several registries in reference to their particular standards and then have links to a few breed clubs. I'd have to look through other dog articles to see if this is typical, but I'll have to get to that later when I don't have to run home from work ;) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 JARETH, I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. I WAS INCORRECT, OF COURSE YOU CAN FIND 
THIRD PARTY REFERENCES TO THE AKC AND THEIR DOG BREEDS. ALL DOGS REGISTERED WITH THE AKC ARE 
FINISHED. THEY ARE NOT UNDER DEVELOPMENT. YOU ARE CORRECT THERE IS NO REASON TO 
ATTACK OTHER REGISTRIES IN THE ARTICLE. 
OBVIOUSLY LISTING THE ISSR AS THE FOUNDING REGISTRY IS CORRECT.
AN INDEPENDENT WRITER WILL FIND THAT TINA M. BARBER IS THE UNDISPUTED BREED FOUNDER.
I BELIEVE ONE OF THE REASONS THE ISSR IS SO ADAMANT ABOUT WHICH REGISTRY IS PRONOUNCED IN THE 
ARTICLE, IS IT IS A BREED STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT. I REALIZE THIS WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER. 
WHILE IN IT'S DEVELOPMENT STAGE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL BREEDING MATCHES BE CAREFULLY WATCHED.
THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE WITH EXTREMELY ACCURATE HISTORICAL DATA AND RECORDS. WHICH THE ISSR HAS.
IN THE CASE OF THE GSD ARTICLE LISTING SEVERAL REGISTRIES IN REFERENCE TO THEIR STANDARDS,
THIS MAY BE DUE TO THOSE BREEDS BEING FINISHED. AGAIN, THE SHILOH SHEPHERD IS STILL UNDER 
DEVELOPMENT. AND OF COURSE YOU CAN HAVE LINKS TO A FEW BREED CLUBS.

72.1.70.194 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

Let's end this foolishness, OK?

I have confirmed that the following organizations WILL issue 'registration papers' for Shiloh Shepherds, therefor I request that they be added to the list of "registries" that the Wikipedia has compiled.

ACA - American Canine Association http://www.acavet.com/

APR- American Purebred Registry http://www.americanpurebred.com/

APRI - American Pet Registry Inc. http://www.aprpets.org/main/index.php

ARU - Animal Registry Unlimited http://friendpages.com/cgi-bin/public/pages/cover.cgi?pageid=animalregistry

CKC - Continental Kennel Club http://www.continentalkennelclub.com/

DRA - Dog Registry of America http://www.dogpapers.com/

FIC - Federation of International Canines http://www.ficregistry.org/mainpage.html

INPDBA - International Progressive Dog Breeders Alliance http://ipdba.8k.com/

NAPDR - North American Purebred Dog Registry http://www.napdr.com/

UABR - United All Breed Registry http://www.unitedregistry.com/

UKCI - Universal Kennel Club International http://www.universalkennel.com/

WKC - World Kennel Club http://www.worldkennelclub.com/

WWKC - World Wide Kennel Club http://www.worldwidekennel.qpg.com/

All I ask is that these be included in your list of "registries" that are willing to issue papers for these dogs! I think this is only fair .. that ALL should be represented!!

However, I do request that you mention that the ISSR, Inc. (formed in 1991) was the original registry started by the Breed Founder.

Thankyou Tina M. Barber 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have to point out "I have confirmed" does not meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, are't the registries currently listed only registering Shilo Shepherds, or am I reading incorrectly? What use could there be to listing all dog registries in the article? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, only one of those registries you provided links to lists the Shiloh as a recognized breed and two others state that they will register any dog/cat/animal you send a registration for. I have no idea what this is supposed to add to the article. Can you please explain why you'd want to add them? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Jareth, the reason she wants to include these other registries is simple. She is simply trying to discredit the other Shiloh registries. She feels that if Wiki is going to list the other Shiloh registries,(rather than just the ISSR) then you might as well list a whole slew of other registries to cloud the issue. PJBJ

Lets try to avoid discussing other editors and focus on the article please. Also, it helps if you sign your posts using ~~~~. Thanks! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

SORRY, ALLOWING ANY OTHER REGISTRY WOULD CLOUD THE ISSUE. AS I HAVE STATED. 
WIKIPEDIA WOULD AT LEAST BE DOING THE PUBLIC A FAVOR BY SHOWING THE RIDICULOUSNESS 
OF ALL THESE REGISTRIES. WHEN THE PUBLIC INVESTIGATED AND FOUND OUT THAT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO  
IS SEND IN AN APPLICATION WITH A CHECK AND THE NAME OF THE SIRE AND DAMN, THEN WHA-LA YOU 
MAGICALLY RECEIVE A WORTHLESS REGISTRATION PAPER IN THE MAIL. 
AGAIN, WHERE IS THE DATA FROM ANY OF THESE OTHER REGISTRIES TO ALLOW YOUR SHILOH 
(OR ANY DOG) TO BE REGISTERED?

67.141.45.154 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

Might I point out that it was Tina who suggested we add all these other registries? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OH I UNDERSTAND JARETH. I WAS BEING SOMEWHAT FACETIOUS WHEN I WAS POINTING OUT 
THAT IF WIKIPEDIA LIST'S SOME, THEY SHOULD LIST ALL. I AGREE WITH MS. BARBER.
HAVING A HALF A DOZEN LISTED OR THREE DOZEN CLOUDS THE ISSUE. 
ACTUALLY, SANDRA SS MAY HAVE FOUND THE ANSWER FOR WIKEPEDIA. 
HAVING AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY WRITE THE ARTICLE USING ANY AND ALL 
INFORMATION AVAILABLE SUCH AS WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE GSD. 
WE WILL WAIT TO HEAR FROM MS. BARBER AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OTHER GROUPS.

72.1.70.194 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

Jareth: Question re: the Straw Poll "Discussion" Section

I am confused. In Ms. Barber's entry above, "Let's end this foolishness, OK?", she listed numerous "registries" and said: "All I ask is that these be included in your list of "registries" that are willing to issue papers for these dogs! I think this is only fair .. that ALL should be represented!!" AND in her first entry under "Straw Poll-Discussion" she said: "I think that EACH registry willing to issue papers for the Shiloh Shepherd should be included!!"

But in her 2nd entry in "Straw Poll-Discussion" above, she says: "If you read this & the ISSR rules carefully, dogs that do NOT meet the specific requirements set by the ISSR cannot get BREEDING PAPERS ... PERIOD!!."

Yes, this does seem entirely contradictory to her earlier two statements. Maybe what she meant to say was "ISSR dogs that do NOT meet the specific requirements set by the ISSR cannot get ISSR BREEDING PAPERS...PERIOD!!!." If that's the case, okay, that's a rule of the ISSR and the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA registries/clubs respect her right to determine her registry/club rules as she sees fit and are very comfortable with the idea that they no longer want their dogs affiliated with the ISSR. But how is that particular ISSR requirement post at all relevant or appropriate to the Straw Poll (i.e. the listing of registries in this article)particularly in light of the fact that Ms. Barber has already very clearly "voted" twice that she would like to see all registries listing Shiloh Shepherds be included?

I also respectfully support requesting that Ms. Barber calmly clarify her position one way or the other and that any other extraneous remarks (by anyone), not related directly to your specific questions in the Straw Poll, be posted in a more appropriate place. This way, we can all view the poll results clearly and move positively and respectfully forward towards resolution. Thank you.69.173.135.114Miles D.

Actually the Discussion section is just for discussing the poll/proposal, so the comments don't hurt anything there. Actually, she hasn't voted on it yet -- in any case, polls are really only useful for showing a consensus which we're starting to see. I'm going to try to direct a few other outside editors this way and get some opinions from people who haven't been involved in the dispute. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Question for Windsong /RaidtheWind

I'm sorry but the numbers don't seem to add up. After reading your reply that

"Wendy Fullerton Windsong Kennels/Raid the Wind Kennels. I have been involved with Shiloh Shepherds from the beginning plus two years previous while they were still registered as German Shepherds. WindsongKennels 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)"

After reading this I went back and looked at the old Shiloh Shepherd (Kennel) Dog World ads from the 70's and 80's that are on the Shiloh Shepherd website. They consistently state that Tina Barber has been breeding her dogs exclusively since 1962. Since they were originally published in a verifiable outside source (Dog World), that should be documentation from a neutral source that she has been developing her line for nearly 44 years. Please tell us how you could possibly have been around the Shiloh world even before Tina was breeding dogs in 1962?

(attack removed)

65.37.31.237 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)M.Bush

What I left is still rather uncivil, please review WP:EQ for suggestions on how to politely discuss the article -- please be aware that personal attacks are absolutely not acceptable and may result in being blocked. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Attn: Moderators. How unfortunate and sad that a member of the ISSR/SSDCA has chosen to resort to such an inappropriate personal attack. Please remove this garbage immediately and the poster along with it. Thank you. 69.173.135.114M. Duffy

I AGREE JARETH, PLEASE CONTINUE TO DELETE PERSONAL ATTACKS. 
"M.DUFFY", DO WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THE AUTHOR IS A MEMBER OF
THE ISSR/SSDCA? NO WE DO NOT! PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING AN 
UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM. EVEN IF SIGNED AS A MEMBER WE ALL KNOW THAT
NO ONE PERSON REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OR CLUB. THAT WAS A
CHEAP SHOT M.DUFFY. THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF MEMBERS OF THE OTHER 
REGISTRIES AND CLUBS.

70.35.121.154 02:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

Please, Willie, enough with locking your Shift key. Re: Your constant use of UPPERCASE LETTERS, Wikipedia (see Wiki's "Talk Page Guidelines-Layout)says "These are considered SHOUTING, and contribute to the view that you are RANTING!!!!!". Please, we can all hear you just fine in "lower case". Thank you. 69.173.135.114 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Miles

To answer the question of M. Bush in the appropriate place, I will copy the answer here. I respectfully clarify my original comment. Jareth, please move or remove as you deem proper. I was referring to when the Shiloh Shepherd was recognized as a rare breed in 1991, not 1974. There were no "Shiloh Shepherds" (the breed) in 1974, just Shiloh Shepherds (the kennel) that bred GSD's, a.k.a. Shiloh Shepherds Kennel, a.k.a. Shiloh Farms. And yes, I did get my first Shiloh Shepherd (GSD) from Shiloh Kennels in 1989 when they were still breeding and selling GSD's, her name was Windsong's Cheyanne D'Shiloh and she is/was a registered Shiloh Shepherd (ORA-C3-7072) as I turned in her AKC papers to the ISSR and they gave me ISSR papers for her in 1992, so she was a Shiloh Shepherd (the breed). I got Trinka (Windsong's Katrinka D'Shiloh) in 1991, the first year the breed was recognized. Hence my comment. WindsongKennels 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Suggestion

Jareth,

In my opinion, in order to have a completely UNBIASED article (as per Wikipedia's rules), you will have to find someone totally uninvolved with Shiloh Shepherds to write it. That person will have to do the research from the websites available and go from there. These 2 groups will never agree on the history of the Shiloh Shepherd. This fighting has been going on for well over 10 years, it isn't about to stop now.

Again, my opinion, but I would like to see the history of the Shiloh Shepherd be the history of the Shiloh Shepherd. Lets look at the GSD Wiki page, In the history section, it states who the breed founder was, when he developed the dogs, what his goal/vision was and the name of the registry he started as the official governing body for the breed. It does not list all the registries that now register dogs as GSD's. I would like to suggest that the Shiloh Shepherd history be written up similar.

"The breed was originated by Captain Max von Stephanitz in the late 1800s and early 1900s. His goal was to breed an all-purpose working dog. The first registered GSD was Horand v. Grafrath [1]who was bred from Grief Sparwasser whose coat color was white. Von Stephanitz admired the landrace herding dogs of his native Germany, and believed they had the potential to be all-purpose working dogs. Additionally, he was aware of the declining need for herding dogs and believed that the working abilities of the breed would decline unless it was put to other uses. Von Stephanitz created the Verein für Deutsche Schäferhunde [2], or SV as the official governing body for the breed. The SV then created the schutzhund trial as a breed test for the German Shepherd Dog, and prohibited the breeding of any dog which could not pass the trial."

Since it has been stated numerous times that the Shiloh Shepherd became its own separate breed in 1991 when ARBA recognized it as such, could someone please explain how the other registries are relevant to the history of the breed when they didn't exist until 10 years later.

SandraSS 21:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

THERE YOU HAVE IT. I CAN AGREE WITH SANDRA SS. 
AN ARTICLE WRITTEN IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE GSD ARTICLE WOULD BE ACCURATE
AND NON DECEPTIVE TO YOUR PUBLIC.

72.1.70.194 22:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

To start, good overuse of captial letters WL.

Since more than 50% of the shilohs being brought into this world are being registered thru the TSSR/NSBR/SSBA but without the ISSR and an ISSR "licensed breeder" makes the inclusion of the registries and clubs relevant. The correct way to have this article written is not thru the deletion of the parties invovled with the breed (that WL would be deceptive). Given the fact that Wendy, Gloria, Judy, Patti, etc were all likely with the breed long before many of you even came along makes the separation of the two groups very relevant in the history section.

Although some users have chosen to list a wide variety of registries that may perform the function, I'd like to know how many shilohs outside of the ISSR/TSSR/NSBR/SSBA are registered in that countless list. The simply truth is that 99.9+% of all registered shilohs are covered between the 4 registries. What makes a registry valid is it's membership. It's recognized by those who are active with the bre

Well said. Dartagnan

NO ONE SUGGESTED WRITING THE ARTICLE WITH DELETION OF THE  PARTIES INVOLVED WITH THE BREED.  
THE FOUR PERSONS YOU MENTIONED MAY HAVE BEEN WITH THE BREED LONGER THAN MYSELF. SO WHAT. STICK 
TO THE SUBJECT, IF YOU CAN. FOR YEARS THESE FOUR PERSONS  AND NO ONE ELSE, HAVE BEEN HELL BENT
ON DISCREDITING TINA BARBER AND THE ISSR. IT DIDN'T WORK  WITH THE UKC, IT HASN'T WORKED IN  
OVER 10 YEARS, AND IT WON'T WORK WITH WIKIPEDIA. THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH. THAT IS WHY I FEEL AN
INDEPENDENT WRITER WITH WIKIPEDIA SHOULD RESEARCH AND  WRITE THE ARTICLE. GREAT IDEA. 
WIKIPEDIA CAN HAVE IT FROM HERE. GOOD LUCK.

72.1.70.194 00:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

Jareth, again an ISSR/SSDCA contributor, Mr. Willie Lass, is personally attacking a contributor by claiming that because Dartagnan has chosen to use a "pen name" rather than her birth name (well within Wikipedia rules), she is "hiding behind lies and deceit". Could you please again censure the contents of this personal attack and advise Mr. Lass of proper conduct. Thank you MilesMiles

 "Jareth", the use of caps was merely to distinguish, not to yell. Sorry. 
  "Miles", I was referring to the letter written prior to Dartagnan, 
  the one Dartagnag agreed with. I stand with my statement.

````Willie Lass

Willie, I'm confused about which of your statements you're standing with: Is it the one where you said "A)ONLY THE ISSR SHOULD BE LISTED." (see #6.4 "Straw Poll Discussion") or is it the one where you said: "NO ONE SUGGESTED WRITING THE ARTICLE WITH DELETION OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED WITH THE BREED.: (see #10 "Article Suggestion" following Dartagnan's "Well said")? Could you clarify your position for us, please?

Also, may I please make another observation. When you go to post and place your cursor in the edit "box" if you leave spaces between the left margin and your first word (maybe by hitting the space bar), this may be why your posts are ending up looking the way they do on the Talk Page. If you do want to "indent" your message, you can do so by again placing your cursor on the first space by the left margin and simply type a colon (:) and begin writing your first word (with no space - example :The tree) or two colons (example ::The tree...). After you are finished with your post and have selected either "Show Preview" or "Save Page", the system will automatically indent either a little (:) or a little bit more (::). Hope this helps, but maybe Jareth can give you the Wiki page (I've forgotten where it's located) which can explain this more clearly than I can. 69.173.135.114Miles

Actually, the article on the GSD further states: After WWI, British and American soldiers, impressed by the abilities of the dog, brought home examples to breed. The breed instantly become popular, both as a family pet and as a working dog. To this day, the German Shepherd Dog is considered one of, if not the most intelligent and versatile breeds in existence.

It clearly shows in the history that others furthered the breed by taking them to America and England. Thus the same with the Shiloh Shepherd. Some facts: While the ISSR was founded in 1991 as the first Shiloh registry, it was only 6 short years later that the first non ISSR registry and club was formed. Thus the ISSR was only the sole Shiloh Registry for 6 years while there have been non ISSR registries for 8. These non ISSR registries have grown and are most definetly registering more litters per the stats posted on the ISSR website. Further to show relevance per The ISSR's own web site's breeders matrix, from 1991 to 1997 when the first new club was started, there are 24 non ISSR breeders listed, and only 5 ISSR breeders.

There is a larger number of non ISSR breeders that have been continually breeding since the Shiloh Shepherd became a breed than ISSR breeders.

As it is worthy of mentioning in the GSD article that dogs were brought to America and England to further the GSD, it is also worthy of mentioning that the popularity of the Shiloh Shepherd also had dogs and breeders leave the original registry to further the breed.

ShenandoahShilohs

Jareth, please see my request above re: Mr. Lass's personal attacks which follow "To start, good overuse of captial letters WL". Thank you. MilesMiles

Let me try to clarify a few misconceptions. There are no independent unbiased editors working for Wikipedia -- you are all Wikipedia and are all editors, Wikipedia is based on thousands of volunteer editors working together to write this encyclopedia. Surely if editors can find compromise on pages like George W. Bush we can do the same here -- I know that everyone here feels very strong about their opinions, but we should still try to work for a resolution that everyone can be comfortable with. It is up to all of you to reach a consensus about the page.

There is no place in this discussion, or any discussion on Wikipedia, for attacks directed at another person or editor. I cannot stress this enough. You must find a way to discuss your opinion of the article without making comments about the other editors -- like my grandmother always says "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." That's a great rule to follow here. I will remove all personal attacks on sight and you will get blocked if you refuse to stop these attacks -- this behavior has gone on far too long. If you cannot behave civily, find another forum for your discussion; Wikipedia is not the place for diatribes and bickering.

Everyone is welcome at Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if someone uses their real name, a pen name or edits from an anonymous ip address -- each editor has as much right to contribute as any other. If someone's work is constantly unproductive, such as those who vandalise or break other policies, they may be blocked from editing regardless of what name or identity they use to edit. If an editor doesn't agree or believe they can follow the policies that Wikipedia uses, they might find it better to contribute elsewhere.

So in short, lets treat each other with respect and come to a compromise. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

BRAVO SANDRA SS!!!!!!! Finally the voice of reason!!! I would only make *one* tiny correction ... that CAN be fully verified (even via their OWN sites) The "other" "registries" did NOT start 10 years ago .. .. If I recall correctly, the NOW DEFUNCT ISSDC/r started in 1998, and closed shop in 2000? Since that time the other "registries" were formed by various "breeders" that could not agree with each other. The *new* ISSDC was not started until the summer of 2004. Tina M. Barber 02:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A Proposal

I posted this on Dec. 10th with the only point of dispute being that in my original post I stated that that membership in the new ISSDC is free. (It was pointed out that that was only for the first year, ending now.) Why can't these facts be incorporated in the History section?

1. The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by Tina M. Barber.

I don't think anyone disputed this, right?? Tina M. Barber

2. The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA), founded in 1991, was and continues to be the original Shiloh Shepherd breed club, with chapters across the US and Europe.

Proven FACT If the ISSDC wants to bementioned, then DATES should be applied! Full details can be found on this chart http://shilohshepherds.info/shilohHistory.htm Tina M. Barber

3. The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR), started in 1991, is the original registry and has been continuously registering Shiloh Shepherds since that time.

All data for the ORIGINAL SHILOH SHEPHERD, going back to the 60's has been documented via the TCCP database that was designed JUST for these dogs! Tina M. Barber

Both of these entities are associated with the breed's founder, Tina M. Barber.

4. Foundations for another breed club, the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (original ISSDC), began in 1997 with that club coming into existence in 1998 and starting its own registry in early 1998.

FULL DETAILS ARE LISTED ON http://shilohshepherds.info/shilohHistory.htm

5. The original ISSDC and its registry closed down in 2001.

6. With the close of the ISSDC's registry, various smaller registries were formed from what remained.

a. The NSBR was started in 2001 according to their own website.  
b. The TSSR started in 2002. 
c. The SSBA, which seems to include many of the same breeders as the NSBR, was also formed.

These smaller registries formed because the breeders could not get along with each other after the ISSDC's registry was closed, not because they had just recently ended their association with Tina M. Barber or had recently been breeding within the ISSR.

The NSBR and the TSSR have their registry rules and regulations on their websites. The NSBR's rules are pretty lax, the TSSR's more strict. The SSBA currently does not publish their rules on their website.

ARE ANY OF THESE REGISTRIES INCORPORATED?? I feel that their registrar's name (and breeding history/experience) should be included when each is mentioned Tina M. Barber

7. Another attempt at forming a breed club, the new ISSDC, was made in mid to late 2004.

I would also mention that this was done to petition the UKC for breed recognition .. that FAILED!!! Tina M. Barber

This would seem to satisfy all parties.

Trillhill 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I COULD LIVE WITH AN HONEST REPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS!! Tina M. Barber

http://shilohshepherds.info/shilohHistory.htm

You left out a few important points, Karen, since you insist on using POV. One big point is WHY most of the breeders who were ever in the ISSR felt they needed to leave the ISSR and start their own registry. That's certainly a big part of the history. YOUR RIGHT GLORIA!! I THINK THEY ARE LISTED ON THIS PAGE http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/shilohWallShame.htm WITH FULL DETAILS!!!! Tina M. Barber

Those, once again, are your self written diatribes. I'm surprised no one's sued you yet.4.248.44.44Gloria

The main reason that the ISSR has so few breeders left, as per TB's own matrix, is because of the lying and the stealing and the insanity going on in the ISSR. In order to breed these magnificent animals to the standard that TB once wrote and to the principles by any ethical breeder, we all had to leave the ISSR. I have a stack of court judgments here (my own included) that are against TB and her kennel that date all the way back to 1990. I didn't look any further back than that. MAYBE YOU SHOULD!! BECAUSE I WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE HONEST DOCUMENTATION REGARDING EACH ... JUST LIKE I DID IN MY LAST ARTICLE ... http://www.shilohshepherds.com/theRestOfTheStory.htm Tina M. Barber

gloria replies: Again, court documents speak more than your self written diatribes.4.248.44.44Gloria

I can post them on my website if anyone would like to see them. That's why we left and that's why we have new registries which have more breeders and produce more litters than the ISSR does. We have higher standards and we share genetic information, not hide it for fear it will reduce puppy sales.

IF YOU SHARE IT OPENLY, AS YOU CLAIM, WHY IS IT THAT NOBODY CAN FIND ANY OF IT?? THE ISSR HAS HAD THE GTF SITE UP FOR YEARS!! WE PROVIDE DETAILED CHARTS (WITHOUT NAMING THE DOGS OWNERS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT *THEIR* FAULT IF THEIR DOG HAS A PROBLEM) http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapHealthSurvey.htm Tina M. Barber

Gloria replies: The GTF site shows no documentation. We argued with you about that when we were in the ISSR and you insisted that you should be the only one to see any of the information, ever. Even if a breeder needed information on a proposed breeding they still could not access any information on health. The information is useless to the breeders.4.248.44.44Gloria

And that's why it's so important that the other registries are included in this article, because we are the part of history that turned the Shiloh Shepherds back around to what they should be. And as for the ISSDC as an "attempt" to form a breed club, we're biiger and stronger than the SSDCA because we have most of the SSDCA mebers here now. NobleAcres Gloria

LET'S BE HONEST! IF YOU HAVE THAT MANY MEMBERS, PLEASE PROVE IT!! STOP TRYING TO BLOW SMOKE UP EVERYONES @&& Your *free* shilohs forum has 272 members http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shilohs/ Our "private" community forum has 1058!! http://shilohshepherds.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=439608064 Tina M. Barber

Gloria replies: Really no need to be so nasty. There is a big difference, though, in how many names one can keep locked in to an egroup that they can't get out of and an active membership in a club. No smoke there. No need for it.

I think this just further proves that all the registries need to be listed in a neutral fashion. TB's "memory" of history changes each time she writes a new article about it, and there's no one else left in the ISSR that has been there that long. They've moved on to the other registries or just quit. The other registires are just as important as the ISSR in the history of the breed. The fact is that they all exist, they need to all be listed in the article with the only distinction, if any, being that ISSR was the first.4.248.44.44Gloria

Reply by Shiloh Supporter:

TB said "Your *free* shilohs forum has 272 members http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shilohs/ Our "private" community forum has 1058!! http://shilohshepherds.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=439608064"

The ISSDC affiliated "Yahoo Shilohs Group" ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shilohs ) has 272 very active members, whereas the Shiloh Shepherd Friends group on http://shilohshepherds.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x lists a supposed 1058 members, even though it's become a well known fact that anyone who joins the list 'cannot unsubscribe'. The SSFriends list only seems to have 6-10 regular users, as can be verified by subscribing to this group.

Attn. Jareth! ! Ms.Gloria is once again making derogatory remarks and being uncooperative.
Just when we were beginning to make some headway, Ms. Gloria wants to continue to be 
disruptive. Why some breeders leave or join a club or registry is not a part of the history. 
I respectfuuly request that you delete remarks in her letter referring to court
documents etc. Also, Ms. Gloria is making unsubstantiated claims of how many litters are
produced, their club is bigger(unsubstantiated hearsay) etc. Which has no bearing on this  
discussion or you final decision of how the Shiloh Article should appear on Wikipedia.

72.1.70.194 15:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Willie Lass

quote - "whereas the Shiloh Shepherd Friends group on http://shilohshepherds.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x lists a supposed 1058 members, even though it's become a well known fact that anyone who joins the list 'cannot unsubscribe'."

This has been verified directly with Groupee. Only the administrator of a groupee account can unsubscribe a member; thus removing the personal choice of someone to leave this group without making direct contact with the administrator. Dartagnan

Article Suggestion: Response

SandraSS said: "I would like to see the history of the Shiloh Shepherd be the history of the Shiloh Shepherd. Lets look at the GSD Wiki page, In the history section, it states who the breed founder was, when he developed the dogs, what his goal/vision was and the name of the registry he started as the official governing body for the breed. It does not list all the registries that now register dogs as GSD's. I would like to suggest that the Shiloh Shepherd history be written up similar."

SandraSS also said: "Since it has been stated numerous times that the Shiloh Shepherd became its own separate breed in 1991 when ARBA recognized it as such...."

Willie Lass said:"THERE YOU HAVE IT. I CAN AGREE WITH SANDRA SS. AN ARTICLE WRITTEN IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE GSD ARTICLE WOULD BE ACCURATE AND NON DECEPTIVE TO YOUR PUBLIC."

Ms. Barber said "BRAVO SANDRA SS!!!!!!! Finally the voice of reason...."

My response:

I.

1)The German Shepherd Dog article Sandra has stated she would like to see the Shiloh article modeled on (with Mr. Lass's and Ms. Barber's stated approvals), in fact, does list many all-breed registries, which register GSDs, including the: AKC (American Kennel Club), the CKC (Canadian Kennel Club), the KC (Kennel Club -located in London and the oldest of the world’s all-breed kennel clubs-see Wiki article), the NZKC (New Zealand Kennel Club) and the UKC (United Kennel Club, which is the second oldest all-breed registry of purebred dog pedigrees in the United States and the second largest in the world-see Wiki article). These are autonomous registries that are not governed by the first GSD registry (the SV).

2)The German Shepherd Dog article also lists two GSD-primary organizations, including: the SV (the "first" GSD-only registry founded around 1899), and the USA (United Schutzund Club of America incorporated almost 80 years later in 1978) (resource: Mr. Nathaniel Roque - current V.P., USA Executive Board of Directors - I will provide Nathaniel and my correspondence if Jareth wants a confirmation date on USA date of incorporation). Both of these organizations are registries and have clubs.

3)The USA is an autonomous nonprofit organization(see: USA website “Constitution and Bylaws–http://www.germanshepherddog.com/members/USA_ByLaws_2005.pdf)

4)"The United Schutzhund Clubs of America Inc. [USA]is a German Shepherd Dog Breed Organization guided by the rules of the organization of origin of the German Shepherd Dog, the "Verein für Deutsche Schäferhunde (SV)" in Germany and is strongly devoted to create and promote the German Shepherd Dog in its original breeding as a working dog. The United Schutzhund Clubs of America Inc. is a member of the "World Union of German Shepherd Dog Clubs" and accepts the by-laws of this organization in regards to the breeding rules of German Shepherd Dogs." (see:http://germanshepherddog.com/breed/index.htm)

5)The USA asserts independence from the exclusive control of the SV and is guided by some, but not all, SV policies/ procedures (see: USA Constitution and Blylaws: Article III "Performance Regulations: Numbers 1-5 at http://germanshepherddog.com/members/USA_ByLaws_2005.pdf). The USA also maintains that as "a member of the "World Union of German Shepherd Dog Clubs" it "accepts the by-laws of this organization in regards to the breeding rules of German Shepherd Dogs" for physical characteristics such as height, measurements, character, etc. (see: http://www.germanshepherddog.com/regulations/breed_standard.htm).

6)The USA registers dogs and has established a club with affiliated regional clubs(see:USA Constitution and Bylaws: Article II "Objectives": Number 4 "Estblish a Breed Registry for German Shepherd Dogs" -(see: http://germanshepherddog.com/members/USA_ByLaws_2005.pdf) and it does not require GSD registration in the the "first registry" (SV) to qualify for registration in the USA (see: http://germanshepherddog.com/regulations/individual_registration.htm)

7)The USA has membership requirements, breeding regulations, and a board of directors, etc...(see: http://www.germanshepherddog.com/). It conducts both its own dog shows and allows its dogs to participate in other registry's/club's events (You can show a dog at a USA show in Schutzhund on Monday and show him again for conformation (physical "beauty" if you will) at Westminster’s AKC show on Tuesday).

Summary: With regard to a comparison of the GSD article and the Shiloh article, I would say: a) The USA is an nonprofit registry/club organization that has asserted independence from the control of the "first" (the SV)and, that while guided by some of the standards of the "first" club, they are legally autonomous from it and have registries, affliated clubs, membership requirements, breeding regulations, and boards of directors. Likewise, the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC are nonprofit registries/clubs that have asserted independence from the control of the "first" (the ISSR), are guided to by some of the standards of the "first" club, but remain autonomous from it and have registries, affiliated clubs, membership requirements, breeding regulations, and boards of directors. b) The USA is acknowledged and referenced in the GSD article and their direct website link is included at the bottom of the article. The NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC inclusion in the Shiloh article should be handled in the same and equal manner. c) As the SV is acknowledged in the GSD article as the "first" so too has the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC agreed to acknowledge the ISSR in the Shiloh Shepherd article as the "first". And as, the "founder" of the GSD, von Stephanitz, is acknowledged in the GSD article, so too has the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC agreed to acknowledge Ms. Barber as the "founder" in the Shiloh Shepherd article. d) And as the various registries/clubs acknowledged in the GSD article are not compared to one another in terms of superiority or quality in the GSD article, the same should also hold true for the registries/clubs listed in the Shiloh article.

II.

Sandra also asked: "...could someone please explain how the other registries are relevant to the history of the breed when they didn't exist until 10 years later".

Definition: History "2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution)" (Merriam-Webster – see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/history)

Consider the following events in American history? These innovators/innovations came long after the "first" settlers discovered this land; many of them were seen as being "renegade/sliver" ideas or people by our "first" American "developers" and to our "original laws", and were considered traitorous, disloyal, a threat to the "status quo" and the control of the "powers that be", and hindering to the "development" of America:

1776-The 13 Colonies sign the Declaration of Independence which leads to the Revolutionary War 1787-The U.S. Constitution is written 1752-Benjamin Franklin discovers electricity 1865-13th Amendment outlaws slavery 1870-15th Amendment establishes the right of African American males to vote 1920-19th Amendment gives women the right to vote 1924-American Indians granted citizenship and the right to vote 1941-45-The U.S. is engaged in WWII 1969-American astronauts land on the moon

Would you consider these innovators and changes to be relevant and important "contributions" to both the history of United States as it was then and as it is today? Thank you. Miles

Questions

When people are looking for their first Shiloh Shepherd or conducting research on this breed, don't you think they deserve the right to equally access any and all information about all the Shiloh registries/clubs so they can have the opportunity to make their own informed decisions, rather than only being "allowed" to see information about "one source" or being spoon-fed "one source's" opinion about other registries/clubs, particularly when those registries/clubs are competitors of that "one source"? Even if people eventually decide that "one source" is better in comparison with others, and even if that is true, shouldn't people be given that choice to make for themselves? People don't need to rely on any one registry/club to tell tell them which registry/club is better or be asked to trust solely in the claims of one registry/club...people should be given unbiased, equal access to links for all 4 registries and 2 clubs and then be trusted to use their own critical thinking and resulting judgments (not any particular registry's/club's exclusive point of view) to decide what's best for themselves. None of these 4 registries/ 2 clubs should ever try to retain loyalty or gain patronage by attempting to squelch information about each other. Rather, they should feel secure enough about their dogs and their visions to not fear competition, use their own websites to promote their individual philosophies and practices, breed and show the best dogs they can, and let the chips fall where they may.

Isn't this what Ms. Barber's slogan "Investigate before you invest" (quoted by her on the ISSR/SSDCA web site-see: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/investigate.htm) actually means....to fully and comprehensively observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry all available information about the Shiloh Shepherd breed and then make a decision? AND Ms. Barber's quote "Always remember that KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!" (again, quoted by her on the ISSR/SSDCA web site-see: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMap.html), isn't she clearly asserting that with knowledge or education one's potential or abilities in life will probably increase" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_is_power); that is to say that knowledge (and the more the better) benefits peoples' potentials and abilities to make their own thorough and informed decisions about this breed, it registries, and its clubs but reading all of their websites, chat rooms, etc.? There's just no need to hide these 4 registries/2 clubs from view or add opinions when they're mentioned in the article....Just let the reader link to the individual websites if they so choose and then decide. In the end, all 4 registries/2 clubs should feel confident that it will all come out in the wash. Thank you. Miles

I concur, Miles, you don't have to be part of the original history of any event to be a keeper of its history. Every author of every book about any piece of history, dog breed, etc. will tell you that. The Great Max was the founder of the GSD, however there are many others that are considered leading authorities of the breed. Dartagnan

Article Suggestion Clarified

Jareth,

I would like to clarify my earlier point and say again that the "history" section of the GSD Wiki page does not list every registry that registers a dog as a GSD. Once again, it is limited to the name of the breed founder, when he developed his dogs, what his goal/vision was for starting the breed, and the registry he started to keep records of his dogs. I have also looked at numerous other breed pages on the Wiki and note that the history section is limited to the history of how the breeds originated.

Here is a proposed version for the history section of the Shiloh Shepherd, based on how the GSD page is done (and in reviewing other breed pages).

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. Those dogs were big, mentally sound, and beautiful. In 1990, Barber separated her dogs from the AKC and in 1991 created the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV) as the official governing body for the breed.

As the breed gained recognition and popularity near the turn of the millenium, new registries and clubs began to form, each having their own vision for the future of the breed.

The existing registries and clubs can all be listed in the external links section of the article. People will be free to visit them and make their own decision from there.

SandraSS 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That does fit the format of most of the other dog breed articles. What does everyone else think? Would this be an acceptable proposal? Obviously the consensus is swinging in favor of having the registries included -- could we do it in this manner like the other dog articles and give readers the chance to form their own opinion based only on the links instead of what we might write (which doesn't seem like it will ever be NPOV)? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

response

"attn. jareth! ! ms.gloria is once again making derogatory remarks and being uncooperative. just when we were beginning to make some headway, ms. Gloria wants to continue to be disruptive. why some breeders leave or join a club or registry is not a part of the history. i respectfuuly request that you delete remarks in her letter referring to court documents etc. also, ms. Gloria is making unsubstantiated claims of how many litters are produced, their club is bigger(unsubstantiated hearsay) etc. which has no bearing on this discussion or you final decision of how the shiloh article should appear on wikipedia."

being uncooperative? from the looks of things, many have been part of this discussion for weeks now and their positions and comments are equally valid. it doesnt take a genius to see there is a lot of emotion behind many editors. how are any of gloria's comments any different from the countless links to the wall of shame that has been linked many times here.

you wrote "unsubstanciated claims?". from the issr website approximately 25 litters per year are being produced (with over 40% of those coming from the barbar kennel). from the issr website, of the 38 currently "licensed" breeders, 25 of those have joined since 2000. Of those 25 breeders, only 5 litters have ever been produced in half a decade. and of those 13 (exluding the barbar kennel) currently "licensed" breeders that were present prior to 2000, five have never even produced a litter, and five have produced a single litter.

what makes the information unsubstanciated? with the nsbr alone, in 2001 there were 15 litters, in 2002 18, in 2003 24, in 2004 26, and something like 30 in 2005. add to this the litters registered under the other issdc affiliated registries. simply because these numbers are not currently published on some website makes them no less valid.

the above is not to discredit anyone, issr or non-issr. none of this is said with a derogatory intent. this is not to make any of the registries seem larger or smaller, but simply to show that there are clearly two main clubs and four registries involved with the breed. they all deserve placement in this article, and all are part of this history of this breed. the article cannot possibly be complete without it including the separation of the two groups (the "two groups" is pretty evident in this discussion) regardless of what may be included in other breed articles. in my opinion, this will allow the public to know when they go searching further for a shiloh they have a head start in know that there are two group involved.

the issr, ssdca, issdc, etc are all welcome to create wiki links to articles just on their clubs, registries and would seem to make sense. it would allow for a npov article, listing the main clubs and registries, and help to find more info on each. but the main article, as already covered, is to be with a neutral point of view.

Hobo dogs question

Article says that breed attempts to resemble "Hobo" dogs but no info is given on what those are/were. Can someone explain? Thanks. Elf | Talk 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

After some googling, I think I found it - these dogs are some GSDs from The Littlest Hobo, and it seems that they are featured in a series of dog training and education books by Charles Eisenmann [6], I updated the article a tiny bit to reflect this, but someone who knows more should update it accordingly to clarify. - Trysha ^(talk) 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this article will explain what I mean by "the Hobo dogs" ... it also includes TONS of great pics ;-) http://www.shilohshepherds.info/whatIsAShilohShepherd.htm Tina M. Barber 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To The Person Considering A Shiloh Shepherd - A full reading of these disputes will educate a potential owner far more than any article written. Shiloh Shepherds are a wonderful breed, but the potential owner should read every single one of these posts and understand that with the purchase of a puppy, they may be entering a world they have no idea exists.

The disputes here unveil the true story of the Shiloh Shepherd. It is my opinion that if Wikipedia is about educating the public, they would present the disputes AS the article.

4.91.88.59 16:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To the Person Considering a Shiloh Shepherd -- by Stu Tarlowe

First of all, I am not neutral. I am a Life Member, since 1991, of the SSDCA (Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America). I have known Tina Barber, aka "Ma Shiloh", the Breed Founder of the Shiloh Shepherd, since the mid-1980s.

At that time, I was disappointed in the way the German Shepherd Dog breed had deteriorated, and I heard that there were a few breeders still producing "old style" GSDs, and that one of them was near Buffalo, NY. That was all I had to go on, but I managed to track Tina down and began corresponding with her.

I was impressed by what she was trying to accomplish, as well as by her knowledge of genetics and experience in dog breeding, and by her passionate belief in her own vision.

Although I researched and investigated other breeders, after visiting Tina's kennel in 1990 I decided to have her provide me with a puppy. Tina and I had a long discussion of what I wanted in terms of size, coat, coloring, markings, and temperament, and she delivered exactly what I wanted. That pup ("Buick") turned out to be the handsomest, smartest, best dog I have ever owned.

I don't think anyone can dispute that Tina Barber is the Breed Founder, and that without her there would be no Shiloh Shepherd.

I can understand why she gets emotional over these disputes, because the Shiloh Shepherd is her vision, her passion and her life's work. I can understand her lashing out at those who compromise that vision and threaten to undermine that life's work.

When I got my Shiloh Shepherd from Tina, I gave her my word that he would not be allowed to mate without her express approval.

Quite simply, that should be her privilege as the Breed Founder. Dogs that are produced with her approval and her blessing are registered with the ISSR (International Shiloh Shepherd Registry) . That is the original registry for Shiloh Shepherds.

Any dog that is NOT registered with the ISSR was produced without the approval and blessing of the Breed Founder, or that approval was revoked because the breeder failed in some way to keep to the agreement he or she made with Tina. I kept my word to Tina, as did those breeders whose dogs are registered with the ISSR.

Those who did not keep their word, and were therefore ineligible to register their dogs with the ISSR, have found other ways to keep producing and selling "Shiloh Shepherds", including starting their own registries. There are all kinds of rationalizations for doing this, but none of those change the fact that they have done so AGAINST the wishes of the Breed Founder.

How can dogs be called "Shiloh Shepherds" if they are produced WITHOUT the blessing and approval of the person who "invented" the Shiloh Shepherd? To call such dogs Shiloh Shepherds is just an attempt to benefit from Tina Barber's name and reputation, without her permission.

If a breeder wants to breed without the approval of the Breed Founder, why not just call those dogs something other than "Shiloh Shepherd"? To say that they have a "right" to that name because it's not copyrighted may be technically legal, but it is certainly not ETHICAL. It shows a lack of respect for the person who started it all.

And, as the person who started it all, Tina Barber, and she alone, should determine the direction in which the Shiloh Shepherd should go.

To the Person Considering a Shiloh Shepherd, I would say the following: Never mind all the accusations and insults that are traded back and forth; they don't change the fact that there are breeders who operate WITH the approval and blessing and consent of the Breed Founder, and those who DON'T.

Registry with the ISSR is what makes a dog an authentic and genuine Shiloh Shepherd.

Everything else may be a very close replica, but it is not genuine. Nowadays, most people who sell "counterfeit" or "replica" merchandise are required to disclose that fact. In the case of dogs sold as "Shiloh Shepherds", it's the ISSR registration that provides proof that you're getting "the real thing".

Consider this: Most people know that the most celebrated violin-maker of all time was Antonio Stradivari.

A genuine "Stradivarius" violin commands a very high price, so much so that many other violin-makers have copied his work and labeled their instruments "Stradivarius". The copies may be decent instruments, but they have no connection with Stradivari and are therefore not genuine. They merely trade on the name and reputation of Stradivari.

It takes a detailed examination by a violin expert for a prospective buyer to determine if an instrument that is called a Stradivarius is, indeed, a genuine Stradivarius. For a prospective buyer to determine if a dog is, indeed, a genuine Shiloh Shepherd, all it takes is insistence that the dog is registered with the ISSR.

Stu Tarlowe 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the history lesson on the violin but I thought this was about writing a unified article for the Wikipedia encyclopedia on the Shiloh Shepherd, a living animal, not an inanimate object. I think focus is needed here. Advocating for or expressing feelings for people here is unproductive and I think there is a proper forum for that elsewhere. Many people are happy with their puppies. I am glad that you are happy with yours. But again, that is not the reason this forum was established. Analogies as well as statistics can be manipulated in anyway that one sees fit...again, unproductive and wheel spinning. I think if people want to post, it should be in reference to editing the article so consensus can be reached. This is getting very redundant.....lets focus. Shiloh Shepherd....the article for Wikipedia on the Shiloh Shepherd. I think Wikipedia is growing weary of it all. I know I am. Iamgateway

And just a side note to let you know how analogies or statistics can be "manipulated". Actually, Andrea Amati was one of the earliest known violin makers, or the "creator" of violins. His violins are priceless, selling to the likes of Charles IV of France, housed in museums across the world, viewed and revered by all masters of the violin. So in reality, Antonio Stradivari was a "sliver" that actually created a "violin" off of the originators' "idea" of what the ideal violin should look like, sound like and behave like when played. He then "improved" upon Amati's original model to became the most famous of violin makers, but certainly not the "founder" of the violins. What does this make Stradivari? I wonder, should he have called the violin that he created something different. Hmmmm, so does that make the Stradivari nothing more than a "copy cat" that tried to steal Amati's design and idea of the perfect violin? Does this discredit Stradivari and all his violins as nothing more than a copy cat of the originators, to be scowled at and ignored in our history books as substandard to Amati's. Very interesting. (Ok, I know, unproductive, but another good lesson on the violins!) Iamgateway

To me this proves Stu's point about the Shiloh Shepherd. Stradivari did NOT call his violin an Amati. I don't think Tina or the ISSR people would be so upset if people called their dogs something else OTHER THAN Shilohs.

Also, for the little it's worth, I don't understand why it should be okay to mess with a dogs (any dogs!) genetics just because they are not an inanimate object and can't be trademarked. In fact, that is why I think they should be more protected. I don't think everyone should be able to breed just because they want to. Especially with a breed under development like the Shiloh. How do you get to a consistent size,health, temprement, etc. if everyone is doing their own thing?

Carol Ritchey

________________________ I respectfully disagree. Stradivari did indeed call his instruments "violins". He did not call them "Stradivari's". The public coined them "Stradivari's" as a reference to who "made" them. They became known as a "Stradivari" because of the shop they came from and the well-known reputation they held. His name became famous because of the prestige of owning one, not because Antonio Stradivari insisted on calling his violins by his namesake. Customers decided, for themselves, where they wanted to get their "violins" by researching, looking, listening and making their own choice as to which violin they liked best. The public used the namesakes so others knew where they got their violins, not to dispute whether it was a violin. Many, many others violin makers surfaced, each indisputably making "violins" but only a few were remembered Giuseppe Guarneri, Nicolo Amati, and Stradivari, to name a few of the historically remembered ones. Namesakes are not thrown around because each designer insisted on prefixing their violins with their names, no, it was the public who choose to use the namesake because of the reputation of quality that came with and followed that name. The quality of the violin created the "name dropping". It was not the demand of the designer, it was the pride of the public in the ownership of such a quality piece.

Analogy: Each kennel breeding shilohs creates their own reputation because of the quality of the shiloh dog they produce to the written standard. Of the four or five well known registries, the majority follow and use the same standard as the breed founder. I think only one registry changed the standard, the rest continue to use the same "vision" that the breed founder wrote for the breed. So, in short, the public will decide what shiloh kennel "namesake" they will choose to buy from, boast upon, recommend and remember.

Also, another side; if someone goes into Amati's shop and purchases a violin from Amati, just because they walk out of that shop and leave never changes the fact that what they own is an Amati violin thru and thru. Amati can't suddenly dispute that particular violin's namesake and say it was no longer an Amati. No kennel can sell a dog from their kennel and suddenly say, it is no longer their dog.

You see we can go back and forth all day on "analogies" all day, twisting and turning them to fit what we want them to, so lets start talking about the Shiloh Article and take energies to concensus for the Wikipedia write-up and lay aside the "analogies".....its about the article, on Shilohs, not history lessons on violins!! Iamgateway

response to mr. tarlowe

mr. tarlowe, that is definitely a very nice personal testimonial about the breed founder, but does not provide facts, but point of view. im sure some will agree with you, while others will not. some will read more into these discussions through the archives and form a different opinion. hopefully if nothing more it will guide the public to research this breed closely prior to chosing where to get their shiloh. read about the issr, read about the issdc, and then they can draw their own conclusions. regardless i respect your passion about the breed.

you state "those who did not keep their word, and were therefore ineligible to register their dogs with the ISSR, have found other ways to keep producing and selling "shiloh shepherds", including starting their own registries". why not elaborate more on that claim you just made. otherwise, it's point of view aimmed towards those not part of the issr group.

The facts speak for themselves! http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registyComparisons.htm Tina M. Barber 13:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

you also state "if a breeder wants to breed without the approval of the breed founder, why not just call those dogs something other than "Shiloh Shepherd"? To say that they have a "right" to that name because it's not copyrighted may be technically legal, but it is certainly not ETHICAL. It shows a lack of respect for the person who started it all". an interesting statement, however im curious how shilohs born from a line of issr shilohs are suddenly non-shilohs simply because the issr didnt get their cut. or how a shiloh that was registered as an issr shiloh and then leaves is no longer considered a shiloh?

The ISSR doesn't get a *cut* it just sets the RULES that have to be adhered to in order to produce quality Shilohs ... those that just breed GSD's are NOT following the recipe, therefor the pups they produce are JUST SHELPERDS! I actually read the same question on the King forum this morning ... How can a "breeder" pick up a litter of cheap $200 GSD pups, and then print off a piece of paper that claims they are King Shepherds & sell those pups for thousands of dollars!!! I replied to the forum that it happens all of the time ... actualy even MORE often with the Shiloh!! :>( ````

leaving a breed this size at this stage in the hands of an individual would seem foolish. let's just say something happened where the founder was no longer able to continue, for whatever reason, by your statements the breed would be over since only the breed founder has the ability to call a shiloh a shiloh. unless the breed founder is methuselah our time here is short.

HOGWASH! All ISSR breeders follow the same recipe, and Lisa is only 28 years old, a LOT younger then most of you .. and knows as much about these dogs as I do ... she has been LIVING it since birth!! Tina M. Barber 13:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Furthermore, I honestly don't know of ANY *young* breed still under development that has had to deal with all these "registries" before it was even set!! Tina M. Barber 13:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

for whatever reason the founders of the three non-issr regstries and issdc left are their business and thankfully the breed is stronger for it, and will ensure a successful future of the shiloh shepherd beyond our years. i'd recommend against making statements like the one you did as they are counter productive and without substance.

This is not an *attack* just a FACT ... I took another look at the list of ISSR breeders & compared it to those in your camps & have determined that ours are YOUNGER then yours!!! So what kind of sanity does this statement make?? Besides, how long do you think the "breed" would survive if dozens of people are selling GSD mutts as Shiloh Shepherds?? Tina M. Barber 14:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

the violin story was nice. some may prefer the guarnerius to the stradivarius. sadly there is something like 600 strads remaining in existence today, and when they are gone - they will be gone forever. which would be the case with the shiloh if the breed founder was the only one to decide what is and what is not a shiloh. The ISSR determine what IS & what isn't!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/shilohShepherdsWhatRThey.htm Tina M. Barber 13:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC) also, the comparison between an inanimate object and a living being doesnt really hold true here since it's dna being carried thru the lines and can replicate unlike the wood used in the violins of the 1700s.

these arent object to be authenticated and signed off like baseball cards. they are a breed of dogs being born to a breed standard. A BREED STANDARD THAT I WROTE, AND ISSR BREEDERS FOLLOW!! http://shilohshepherds.info/breedingGenetics.htm Tina M. Barber 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Some very good points made here. I wonder if anyone told all the Americans and the rest of the world that they can't call thier dogs German Shepherds since they didn't stay registered with the SV? Did anyone notify AKC the GSD's they have registered for decades are fakes, and mutts? I guess with some people's thoughts the German Shepherd should no longer be a Breed since Max vS is no longer alive to RULE the breed he created. ShenandoahShilohs

In all honestly, a LOT of people still think that the SV should have prevented the GSD from getting into the AKC because they don't like what has happened to the American Show Dog just search the web ... you will easily find lots of web pages that show breeders STILL following the *old* rules!! The average consumer is not being fooled either ... they CAN CHOOSE to get an "American GSD, or a German GSD" Atleast they have less chance of being fooled into getting an impure mix! Tina M. Barber 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty, most of the general public looking for a GSD as a pet knows nothing about the SV. What you have pointed out is that people have the right to make a choice. By including the ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA along with links to their respective websites, they will have the information provided by those registries to make the decision on their own. 66.188.54.68 14:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Support all points and NSBR

As the owner of the NSBR I would like to discuss the following:

Support all points - I support the article with the listings of each of the Shiloh Registries. The ISSR, TSSR, NSBR, SSBA

and the inclusion of the two Shiloh clubs, the SSDCA and ISSDC

Miles Duffy wrote: Since more than 50% of the shilohs being brought into this world are being registered thru the TSSR/NSBR/SSBA but without the ISSR and an ISSR "licensed breeder" makes the inclusion of the registries and clubs relevant. The correct way to have this article written is not thru the deletion of the parties invovled with the breed (that WL would be deceptive). Given the fact that Wendy, Gloria, Judy, Patti, etc were all likely with the breed long before many of you even came along makes the separation of the two groups very relevant in the history section.

Mr. Lass wrote: NO ONE SUGGESTED WRITING THE ARTICLE WITH DELETION OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED WITH THE BREED. THE FOUR PERSONS YOU MENTIONED MAY HAVE BEEN WITH THE BREED LONGER THAN MYSELF. SO WHAT. STICK TO THE SUBJECT, IF YOU CAN. FOR YEARS THESE FOUR PERSONS AND NO ONE ELSE, HAVE BEEN HELL BENT ON DISCREDITING TINA BARBER AND THE ISSR. 72.1.70.194 00:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS

Judy writes: Mr. Lass, your negative statement about me is incorrect. I do not bother saying anything about Ms Barber, therefore I request that it is removed. ShilohshepherdJudyShilohshepherd

 As an intelligent person, I REJECT ALL POINTS ! ! 
Mr. Lass responds: Judy sorry, I won't retract my earlier 
statement. This is so simple and the NSBR and all other registries 
just don't get it. Once the Shiloh Shepherd Breed is finished no 
one gives a hoot how many registries spring up. Like with the GSD 
and other breeds. But, as has been stated quite adamantly by 
Ms.  Barber and The ISSR, The breed Is Still Under Development. 
Allowing to have breedings that are not carefully watched and
controlled with years and years of data and research will 
ultimately change or at worst destroy the breed.

70.35.121.154 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Willie Lass

Ms Barber wrote: BRAVO SANDRA SS!!!!!!! Finally the voice of reason!!! I would only make *one* tiny correction ... that CAN be fully verified (even via their OWN sites) The "other" "registries" did NOT start 10 years ago .. .. If I recall correctly, the NOW DEFUNCT ISSDC/r started in 1998, and closed shop in 2000? Since that time the other "registries" were formed by various "breeders" that could not agree with each other. The *new* ISSDC was not started until the summer of 2004. Tina M. Barber 02:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Judy write: Ms Barber, the NSBR was not started because of any disputes with other breeders. It was started because many breeders did not want to return to the ISSR/SSDCA after the ISSDCr closed due to personal reasons. ShilohshepherdJudyShilohshepherd

Karen wrote: These smaller registries formed because the breeders could not get along with each other after the ISSDC's registry was closed, not because they had just recently ended their association with Tina M. Barber or had recently been breeding within the ISSR. The NSBR and the TSSR have their registry rules and regulations on their websites. The NSBR's rules are pretty lax, the TSSR's more strict. The SSBA currently does not publish their rules on their website. Trillhill 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Judy writes: Karen, again, your comments are incorrect. The NSBR did not start because of breeder problems, see my answer above to Ms Barber. And.. the NSBR rules were exactly the same as the ISSR rules. Does that mean that you are now stating the the ISSR rules are lax also? ShilohshepherdJudyShilohshepherd

Mr Lass wrote: Attn. Jareth! ! Ms.Gloria is once again making derogatory remarks and being uncooperative. Just when we were beginning to make some headway, Ms. Gloria wants to continue to be disruptive. Why some breeders leave or join a club or registry is not a part of the history. I respectfuuly request that you delete remarks in her letter referring to court documents etc. Also, Ms. Gloria is making unsubstantiated claims of how many litters are produced, their club is bigger(unsubstantiated hearsay) etc. Which has no bearing on this discussion or you final decision of how the Shiloh Article should appear on Wikipedia. 72.1.70.194 15:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Willie Lass

Judy write: Bravo Mr Lass, you are correct. Why breeders left the ISSR/SSDCA does not belong in this discussion. Now, will you remind me why you keep putting me down? As to the club/registry numbers, I have submitted mine and they are correct as they appear on this discussion. This only means that we do, in fact, deserve equal billing. ShilohshepherdJudyShilohshepherd

Mr. Lass responds: Judy, sorry if it seems as if I am personally   
putting you down. I don't mean to attack you personally. You may  
have correct numbers, you may even be an excellent breeder who is
caring. The whole point again is quite simple. Ms. Barber has 
stated it many many times through the years. Once any breeder 
decided to leave the ISSR and breed, they cannot call their 
dogs "Shiloh Shepherds". The lady that began breeding "White
Shepherds" as an example did not leave the AKC and continue to call
her dogs German Shepherds. She developed "The American White
Shepherd". I don't know the exact history or names as some, but The 
King Shepherd is another example. The same thing. They are not AKC
German Shepherds or Shiloh Shepherds, they are"King Shepherds". So 
to give these other registries "equal billing" is ridiculous. 
It is very simple. Ms. Barber is suggesting that the article be 
written like this article: http://www.canadasguidetodogs.com/shiloh.htm

70.35.121.154 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Willie Lass

M Duffy wrote: None of these 4 registries/ 2 clubs should ever try to retain loyalty or gain patronage by attempting to squelch information about each other. Rather, they should feel secure enough about their dogs and their visions to not fear competition, use their own websites to promote their individual philosophies and practices, breed and show the best dogs they can, and let the chips fall where they may. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!" There's just no need to hide these 4 registries/2 clubs from view or add opinions when they're mentioned in the article....Just let the reader link to the individual websites if they so choose and then decide. In the end, all 4 registries/2 clubs should feel confident that it will all come out in the wash. Thank you. Miles

TINA'S REPLY, ROTF ... Talk about "smoke & mirrors" ... WOW!! Now let's look at some *varifiable*

2. The ISSDC/r did not start till 1998, and was CLOSED DOWN in 2001!! Most of those breeders scattered at that point, some returning to the ISSR (via the amnesty) while others went back to breeding AKC GSD's ... etc. ONLY the NSBR started another 'registry' that most of the former ISSDC/r breeders did not agree with because her "rules" were so lax!

Judy writes: Tsk, tsk Ms Barber... you have been beating on the NSBR quite a bit lately, haven't you? The breeders that came to me for help have mostly stayed. Several breeders decided to raise the health testing bar, and for that I commend them. I have been here, using the exact rules you have used for all this time. Only differences, we kept the DNA program and help the breeders to think for themselves. It's the USA afterall. ShilohshepherdJudyShilohshepherd

Let's be honest here ... I have quoted *directly* from your site!! The ISSR has never allowed dogs of the *SHEPHERD FAMILY* (this could include thousands of dogs presently in shelters that just "resemble" shepherds) to get ISSR papers!! The ISSR has extremely strict rules that all breeders must adhere to ... those that don't loose their right to call the pups they produce "Shiloh Shepherds" .. it's as simple as that!! I think this UNBIASED site has done a wonderful job with their 'explanation' http://canadasguidetodogs.com/shiloh.htm Tina M. Barber

Ooops

Judy said: "Miles Duffy wrote: Since more than 50% of the shilohs being brought into this world are being registered thru the TSSR/NSBR/SSBA but without the ISSR and an ISSR "licensed breeder" makes the inclusion of the registries and clubs relevant. The correct way to have this article written is not thru the deletion of the parties invovled with the breed (that WL would be deceptive). Given the fact that Wendy, Gloria, Judy, Patti, etc were all likely with the breed long before many of you even came along makes the separation of the two groups very relevant in the history section."

Judy, Miles Duffy didn't write this, so could you please remove my name (since they didn't sign you could probably just substitute "No-Sign wrote:") I have noticed a couple posts the last day or so where the contributor has not signed their message, so that's what probably threw the thread off. So, could everyone please make sure to sign your posts. If you don't know how, you can do so by putting three tildes (~~~)at the end of your post (ex: Now is the time for all~~~) Thank you.69.173.135.114Miles

Pictures speak louder then words!

Take a moment to look at http://shilohshepherds.info/whatIsAShilohShepherd.htm

Then compare the pictures in this old article to another more recent ISSR article http://shilohshepherds.info/brokenHeartedBreedFounder2004Update.htm

Then take a look at what the "new" "registries" are producing http://shilohshepherds.info/cherryBlossom2004Collage.htm

Then go to http://shilohshepherds.info/SiteMapfaqBeforePurchasingAPuppy.htm

If anyone here bothers to investigate, they can clearly see that the Shiloh Shepherd is NOT "just" a GSD!!

If you just want a synopsis, try http://shilohshepherds.info/shilohHistory.htm Tina M. Barber

Tina, I honestly have to ask at this point if you intend on contributing anything to this discussion. I've asked many times for you to stop attacking the others involved in the article and yet it continues even after you have been blocked for it (please note I am referring to many posts above, not this particular one) -- everyone else involved has generally stopped with the diatribes and rancor you still display. Is there any chance you could discuss the topic? There is no chance whatsoever that Wikipedia will take your research on your pages as gospel and use that to "investigate" the other registries. We don't do that -- please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR -- we present the facts and allow readers to make their own decisions about the information presented. If you have any single verifiable fact that gives any reason the other registries should not be included in the article (and please note, this does *not* include your own webpages) then please give it. If you cannot do so, it is obvious that the current consensus is to include these registries. Hopefully everyone can agree to do this in a similar manner as the other dog breed pages -- I'm sure the Dog breed project would appreciate the help with consistency. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jareth, I never said that you shouldn't mention the fact that they EXIST ... all I have been asking for is an HONEST representation of when they started, and what they are doing!! Their "version" of this breed STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT, is not the same as mine! PERIOD! They just register any GSD or GSD/mix as a Shiloh Shepherd, this only leads to mass confusion for the consumer!! Would you like me to show you external web sites that PROVE this?? If you take some time to investigate the TRUTH, I am sure that you would agree that their dogs should be called KING SHEPHERDS .. not shilohs!!!

Furthermore, since none of these "organizations" are VALID Incorporated "REGISTRIES" or can even be inspected properly ... obviously you are taking their POV .. via their private websites ... while asking for some sort of *EXTERNAL* documentation from us!! We have provided you with tons of "outside" data, yet you keep rejecting it, while accepting the "other" *PRIVATE* "registries" POV sites! Can you please explain WHY? Tina M. Barber

Again, please see WP:V (are you even bothering to read the policies that we keep referring to?) -- that particular policy states this:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

As you can see -- we are not here in a quest for truth. We can list the registries, we can list the dispute between your registry and theirs since outside sources have been provided for the dispute but we cannot make a determination on the validity, genetic purity or other aspects of anyone's breeding programs without an outside source -- we cannot include original research. We operate under the assumption that readers have their own minds -- they can visit your page and see the information you've provided about the other registries there and they can visit the other registries pages and see the information they've provided; we cannot use any original research as fact in the article.

I've asked over and over for you to give any evidence on what makes a valid registry. You've responded with information about the AKC and FCI -- this had nothing to do with whether or not other registries are valid. You pointed out other all breed registries, again, that does nothing to confirm or dispute the validity of the registries listed here. You make wild claims, generally in a very uncivil tone and expect that this will somehow confirm your opinion -- it does not.

I've looked very little at any of the websites of people involved in this dispute because the claims made therein have absolutely no bearing on the current discussion. All of the websites can claim whatever they would like -- since all of you are involved in the article and the dispute, you are not a neutral third party; those sources would not be considered NPOV or reliable for that matter on topics relating to this dispute.

You have yet to provide any single instance of outside data that had anything at all to do with this dispute. I understand your frustration over the dispute with the other registries, but this is not the place for it. If you cannot discuss the issue on the table without being uncivil, you might find that there are much better places for you to express your opinion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Tina writes:Furthermore, since none of these "organizations" are VALID Incorporated "REGISTRIES" or can even be inspected properly ... obviously you are taking their POV .. via their private websites ... while asking for some sort of *EXTERNAL* documentation from us!! We have provided you with tons of "outside" data, yet you keep rejecting it, while accepting the "other" *PRIVATE* "registries" POV sites! Can you please explain WHY? Tina M. Barber

I would assume from this writing that Barber is trying to discredit Registries as Private, and the ISSR as a Corporation. I am providing proof that the ISSR is not Incorporated, though many years ago it was. Further, when it was incorporated, the business address was Barbers personal home address. Again, just more misleading information being given to muck the discussion about the article. http://appsext5.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=1821573&p_corpid=1755495&p_entity_name=%49%6E%74%65%72%6E%61%74%69%6F%6E%61%6C%20%53%68%69%6C%6F%68%20%53%68%65%70%68%65%72%64%20%52%65%67%69%73%74%72%79&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=%43%4F%4E%54%41%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

ShenandoahShilohs

Breed Standard

I would like someone to show me ONE dog 'breed' that exists without a Breed Standard!!

I certainly hope that everyone here understands that the Breed Standard represents the "blueprint" of what that "breed" stands for, and what the breeders are striving towards. It is the guide that all dogs should be judged by, and all mating pairs should be selected for.

In the real world, the "breed clubs" are formed to uphold the standard, and work together toward promoting THAT breed. How can you have a club without a breed standard?? How can you operate 3-4-5 registries without a Breed Standard??

I would like to suggest that the Wiki clearly link the ONLY Breed Standard that has been "recognized" for this breed (as per ARBA) http://www.arba.org/ShilohShepherd1BS.htm to this article .. clearly stating who wrote it, the name of the club & registry that represents it, etc... What's so hard about THAT?

If the other clubs/registries want to be listd, they should also provide THEIR breed standard & the LEGITIMATE organization that has recognized it, and as of when ... that's all I am asking for!! HONEST REPRESENTATION! Tina M. Barber

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds for the currently accepted way to include registries. All registries considered "other" registries are link in the External links section so that one may go there to view their standards; this is in order to keep the article to-the-point -- can you imagine listing all the registries standards for the GSD for example?. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Lass writes: Jareth, when will all this evedence and remarks by 
all be taken to an arbitration board or Judge? We are getting no 
where. I am done trying to convince you and the other registries. 
This is so simple. If all these remarks and writings here on 
Wikipedia from everyone were presented to an Independent
Arbitration Board or Judge, and the evidence presented was 
scrutinized and researched I am confident that the Board or Judge 
would agree with The ISSR and Tina Barber, The Breed Founder. What
Tina has suggested is an article written like this one: 
http://www.canadasguidetodogs.com/shiloh.htm . Have you read it Mr.
Jareth? Would the other registries agree to an Article written as 
such?
I SUPPORT THE ISSR and TINA M. BARBERS suggestions.

70.35.121.154 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Willie Lass

response to ms barbar

ms barbar, im not overly fond of how you decided to post within my past post (response to mr tarlowe) and made the discussion very difficult for someone to read. jareht if you can please clean it up to the original form and add ms barbars comments at the bottom it would be helpful to those seeing it here and can follow what is being said and by who.

in response to "leaving a breed this size at this stage in the hands of an individual would seem foolish. let's just say something happened where the founder was no longer able to continue, for whatever reason, by your statements the breed would be over since only the breed founder has the ability to call a shiloh a shiloh. unless the breed founder is methuselah our time here is short."

you stated "hogwash! all issr breeders follow the same recipe, and lisa is only 28 years old, a lot younger then most of you .. and knows as much about these dogs as I do ... she has been living it since birth!! furthermore, i honestly don't know of any *young* breed still under development that has had to deal with all these "registries" before it was even set!! tina m. barber"

so by that response, regardless of the many posts on this discussion by issr affiliated editors that claim that "only the breed founder can say what is and what is not a shiloh" and "only the breed founder has the vision" you have stated that someone other than the breed founder can determine what is and isnt a shiloh. it doesnt matter who that person is, you have stated that someone else can carry this the breed in your absence. that is already taking place outside of the issr. and also, since you state that all issr breeders follow the same recipe and the heads of the various non-issr registries were all formerly issr breeders they too follow the same recipe.

in reponse to "for whatever reason the founders of the three non-issr regstries and issdc left are their business and thankfully the breed is stronger for it, and will ensure a successful future of the shiloh shepherd beyond our years. i'd recommend against making statements like the one you did as they are counter productive and without substance."

you also stated "this is not an *attack* just a fact ... i took another look at the list of issr breeders & compared it to those in your camps & have determined that ours are younger then yours!!! so what kind of sanity does this statement make?? besides, how long do you think the "breed" would survive if dozens of people are selling gsd mutts as shiloh shepherds?? tina m. barber 14:13, 30 december 2005 (utc)"

i believe that you have misunderstood the point that was being made in the original commment. the comment questioning what is more likely to ensure the longevity of the breed - an individual that has claimed to be the only one who knows what a shiloh is or where it's going, or a group/club made up of many users committed to the same cause. had nothing to do with the average age of breeders. out of curiosity did you include the 23 of the 28 most recent issr breeders that have never produced a litter or only the active ones. i was also unaware that you know the dates of birth of ever non issr breeders.

this is point of view, i do not care why the current non-issr registry founders left the issr. that is their business and none of mine. for all i know it could have been something as unrelated to the dogs as religious beliefs (with the heavy christian theme in the issr they could be muslim hindu jewish and felt awkward with their God being mixed with their dog), it could have been for personal dispute reasons and nothing to do with the rules, whatever it was it was their business and not mine or anyone elses.

someone should add up every link youve provided to your own sites here. it must be in the hundreds by now (could also add up every exclamation pt). wall of shame, broken hearted breed founder, "licensed" breed matrix are all interesting but are no less self serving that anyone elses personal website. it is nice that you find time to go to shows and try and find a bad frame or two on these non-issr dogs when its rare to see an issr dog out at the shows. i suppose if there were more issr shilohs showing non-issr folks can take a few hunred photos and hope for a bad shot - sort of like the paparazzi of the dog world but i doubt most would do that and are too focused on their own dogs to worry about someone elses.

i think someone previously stated something about the canadas dog guide site. i think someone mentioned a while back that these are all advertising sites and not research facilities. they take and post what they are given and doesnt make them neutral. hopefully after this wiki article is resolve it can be used to correct sites like the ones you mention. Gwyllgi 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooops!

So sorry M Duffy. With all of the capitol letters and pc 'yelling' going on in this discussion, I got a bit confused. Anyway, please note that the quote came from 'unknown' instead of M Duffy. JudyShilohshepherd

response to mr lass

you just stated "once the shiloh shepherd breed is finished no one gives a hoot how many registries spring up. Like with the gsb and other breeds. But, as has been stated quite adamantly by ms.barber and the issr, the breed is still under development."

however when i raised that point yesterday and questioned what would happen in her absense should be be unable to continue with the breed the response by ms barbar was that her daughter or any of the issr could continue since they have the recipe. since the non issr registries were founded from issr original breeders many many years ago (i use many many years since that is what you stated a bit ago about the health survey which was done in 2001) how is it that they are incapable of what lisa, karen, or the current issr would continue with in ms barbars absense. yes you have stated the breed is in development and others are claiming it is not as of 1991.

you then stated "once any breeder decided to leave the issr and breed, they cannot call their dogs "shiloh shepherds"."

why not. again since ms barbar said the issr breeders have the recipe and the current non issr breeders are using that recipe, then why should they not be called shiloh shepherds. only difference is they are being done by people who dont pay to have a ficticious license issued, pay to be listed on a matrix, pay to have an ler done, or kick back half a litter to the original kennel.

what ties in with your claim is that no one previously answered my previous comment on how a dog registered with the issr can leave the issr and then be treated as a "non-shiloh".

i just read the canadas dog guide article and see if has a very high number of links to the issr. i am interested to know what was their primary source for the article. as i said before once this is done it will be able to be used as the breed artcile for advertising sites like canadas dog guide. so rather than marketing people typing a quick note on a breed provided from a biased source the wikipedia article will be used as the example to be followed by these sites. as someone mentioned before perhaps this similar site (and advertising webpage) should be used as the foundation [[7]] Gwyllgi 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ms Barber again

Ms Barber wrote: Let's be honest here ... I have quoted *directly* from your site!! The ISSR has never allowed dogs of the *SHEPHERD FAMILY* (this could include thousands of dogs presently in shelters that just "resemble" shepherds) to get ISSR papers!! The ISSR has extremely strict rules that all breeders must adhere to ... those that don't loose their right to call the pups they produce "Shiloh Shepherds" .. it's as simple as that!! Tina M. Barber

Judy writes: Ms Barber, please note your own statement says “this ‘could’ include”, which really doesn’t mean that it does. It simply doesn’t include shelter dogs. You yourself should know (as you have used them) that once a shelter takes possession of a dog, it spays/neuters them. The ISSR has chosen several dogs that either didn’t have a pedigree at all or were chosen simply because of their color. We are all aware of the day, July 1995, in Toby, MD ( when you waved your magic wand and poof, Fisher’s Cisco Kid Spectacular (GSD with full AKC papers only) was shown as, and fathered a litter of full Shiloh Shepherds puppies with full Shiloh rights and full breeding papers. Oh wait, you bred one of those puppies, didn’t you? I was there, so yes, you are the one who can say ‘poof’, but why do you think that others can’t? That simply seems wrong to me. All registries are very careful about the dogs being brought in to improve the Shilohs. Again, you are being mean spirited and I truly wish someone would stop this liable slander as it isn't addressing the real issue here. ShilohshepherdJudy

I don't think this is the place for this, but I will answer your question!!

Cisco "became" a Shiloh because he was able to meet the requirements that I set for the ISSR ... please read http://www.shilohshepherds.info/originalISSRrules.htm

If you take the time to research his pedigree you will find dozens of names with the word SHILOH in them. In other words, I bred his sire Shiloh's Easy Rider, who was whelped by Shiloh's Kara Lobo of Emmview, who was out of Shiloh-Emmviews Grey Express, etc... etc... on his dams side her sire was Shiloh Guardian's Still Smokin, who was out of Shiloh's Smoke-in-Szar, out of DiMar-Shiloh's Princess Leia, both out of Ensomheds Luke von Shiloh going back to Shiloh Lin-Mar's Czarne Mishka, and Shiloh's Hope of Perfection, that was out of Shiloh's Lady von Glendhenmere, etc....etc...etc..... That's why he qualified as a *SHILOH* because his PEDIGREE PROVED IT!!! The dogs you are waving your magic wand over are just plain old AKC German Shepherds!!!! Tina M. Barber

Tina writes: That's why he qualified as a *SHILOH* because his PEDIGREE PROVED IT!!!

Heart be still, finally, it is admitted, it is the pedigree that makes a Shiloh a Shiloh, not what registry it belongs with. Thank you for agreeing with what everyone has been saying all along. 152.163.100.132 ShenandoahShilohs

Suggestion for the History section - Again

This seems to have been lost in the continuous banter. So once again, here is a proposed version for the history section of the Shiloh Shepherd, based on how the GSD page is done (and in reviewing other breed pages on the Wiki site). I have copied this from my earlier post and have included the reply from Jareth. Can we please focus on the article?

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. Those dogs were big, mentally sound, and beautiful. In 1990, Barber separated her dogs from the AKC and in 1991 created the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV) as the official governing body for the breed.

As the breed gained recognition and popularity near the turn of the millenium, new registries and clubs began to form, each having their own vision for the future of the breed.

The existing registries and clubs can all be listed in the external links section of the article. People will be free to visit them and make their own decision from there.

SandraSS 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That does fit the format of most of the other dog breed articles. What does everyone else think? Would this be an acceptable proposal? Obviously the consensus is swinging in favor of having the registries included -- could we do it in this manner like the other dog articles and give readers the chance to form their own opinion based only on the links instead of what we might write (which doesn't seem like it will ever be NPOV)? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

SandraSS 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Article content edit - response

"Unsigned Poster" said: "Could you please explain why you felt it necessary to move the ESSR link added to the registries section to the bottom of the list? It has been agreed upon that the ISSR can be listed first, since the ESSR is a partner of the ISSR in Europe, the link was placed secondly."

My response:

Please see Contents #1 Dispute(s)"-This is the proposal that has been in front of the group for discussion (i.e. Inclusion of the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSR registries and ISSDC and SSDCA clubs), per Jareth's request and her/his efforts to move this article "in good faith" toward consensus and resolution.

Upon viewing the article last evening, it appeared that it had been extensively edited (including the new, obviously controversial addition of a new supposed registry). Before this occurred, and from the time the Straw poll came before us, there had been requests and tacit agreements to refrain from additional edits to the article until such time we could reach some sort of agreements. And, in "good faith", contributors adhered to these requests/agreements.

It is my opinion that some of these changes last evening were made:

1)surreptitiously [done, made, or acquired by stealth clandestinely synonym:SECRET -http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=surreptitiously]

2)without regard for the common courtesy, critical to the success of this communal effort, that "new" information be discussed prior to its inclusion in an article, in which all contributors have vested interests.

2)without extending the opportunity for other contributors to pose the same valid and reasonable questions as have been previously discussed about the ISSR, NSBR, TSSR and SSBA, such as to whether or not the ESSR qualifies, by definition, as a "registry" of any sort (i.e. is it a registry?, is it a Shiloh registry, is it a "satellite" of the ISSR registry and the ISSR TCCP database similar to a regional club)......much less importantly, where it should be placed.

In response to this, forgive me, "lame-o" bully tactic, my choice was to either remove it completely or edit in such a way that it remains for now while the group discusses its appropriateness for both inclusion and future placement. I decided to take the high road, butI relocated it for the following reasons:

Consensus - The NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and ISSR registries have been thoroughly discussed among all contributors and their inclusion has been affirmed by consensus. The ESSR was not included in in the NSBR,TSSR, SSBA Proposal nor, for that matter, has it's inclusion even been discussed in this forum at all that I can see, prior to now. Until consensus is reached, it should not have a prominent position among the others on the list.

Chronology - Since this has been a major contention of the ISSR/SSDCA for mention in this article in all ways (i.e. they were first and should be mentioned first, both in the article itself and on the registry/club lists) throughout this entire discussion and, since the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA have agreed to this, it would makes sense, in that case, that the ESSR be placed last as it is the most recently "established".

Geography - The Shiloh breed was founded in the U.S. by an active American based breeder and the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and ISSR registries are American based organizations, whereas the ESSR is European based. It is logical again that its placement follow these registries.

Size - Again, lacking any presented info (much less, verifiable info) before the group re: this entity, and considering its only recent establishment, it can be reasonably assumed that the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and ISSR are probably larger organizations than the ESSR.

I feel I must say, at this point, that although many contributors have tried to be reasonable, and to adhere to some code of good conduct throughout this passionate discussion.....bullying, fanaticism, vandalism, stealth and/or a refusal to negotiate just aren't going to fly with most of us in this forum.

Finally, It is standard etiquette in forums and discussion groups that some type of signature tag be attached to postings, in order for posters to "refer" and respond to each other's messages and to allow for some semblance of "order" on the page.

It doesn't matter what "name" is used (pen, nickname, whatever) and an IP address is also fine. Just something to differentiate your posts from others. Obviously you want to contribute to the group, so could you please assist your fellow contributors and sign your posts. Thank you69.173.135.114 22:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Miles D.

.

As a Shiloh owner, I have been turned off by the ISSR in it political attacks on breeders who have choosen to seperate themselves from Ms Barber. Once pedigree papers are granted, they should not be able to be revoked by the whiles of one dominant figure in the ISSR. The ISSR core members are hindering the expansion and recognition of the Shiloh breed by political smear tactics, threating, and revocation of dog papers and awards in an effort to manipulate members. The other registries would have promoted the Shiloh shepherd to much greater public awareness if Ms. Barber become a contributing member to the their efforts instead of working against them. Many year of atempt to control and dominate are turning out to be expense of the ISSR, and its continual contraction. I am under the impression that there are many more Shiloh breeders outside of the ISSR. Mr. Lass typlifies the verbal abuse that has be ongoing for years which has literally resulted in the alienation of numerous breeders. At the rate the ISSR is shrinking, the organization will eventually end up as a historical footnote.

As far as all the suggestions of superiority, I would suggest that much of her gene pool has become severely limited by overutilization of a dog named "Griz" owned by Ms. Barber. There are so many dogs directly linked to Griz in the ISSR that the ISSR gene pool has significat breeding limitations. If Ms. Barber would drop her political boundries, the large diverse Shiloh gene pool outside of the ISSR would make for much better genetic pairing. In my opinion, if pure love of the breed was the driving motivation, Ms. Barber would drop her political boundries, and learn that even an inventer eventually must relinquish his hold on his creation if it is to survive, improve and flourish.

Signed: Shiloh owner

Ms. Barber - Logical Conclusions I

(Note: The following is not a judgment of Shiloh Shepherd breeding practices. It is a commentary on LOGIC !)

1) Ms. Barber, throughout the years and throughout all of your communications here, and everywhere, you have more than repeatedly stated and written that the Shiloh Shepherd was "invented" through your dog breeding program, whereby you used certain particular German Shepherds (which you bred in your German Shepherd Shiloh Kennel) and certain particular Malamute type dogs. Your claim as a "founder" is based on the premise that in order for dogs to be Shiloh Shepherds they must have this heritage (i.e. pedigree) which "proves" they are "genuine" and "unique" and "different" from both German Shepherds and any other dogs. (see: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/whatIsAShilohShepherd.htm)

And so:

a) Judy said: "Fisher’s 'Cisco' Kid Spectacular (GSD with full 'AKC papers only') was shown as, and fathered a litter of full Shiloh Shepherds puppies with full Shiloh rights and full breeding papers." [see Content #28-"Ms Barber again"]

b) And 'You replied': "If you take the time to research his pedigree you will find dozens of names with the word SHILOH in them. In other words, I bred his sire Shiloh's Easy Rider, who was whelped by Shiloh's Kara Lobo of Emmview, who was out of Shiloh-Emmviews Grey Express, etc... etc... on his dams side her sire was Shiloh Guardian's Still Smokin, who was out of Shiloh's Smoke-in-Szar, out of DiMar-Shiloh's Princess Leia, both out of Ensomheds Luke von Shiloh going back to Shiloh Lin-Mar's Czarne Mishka, and Shiloh's Hope of Perfection, that was out of Shiloh's Lady von Glendhenmere, etc....etc...etc..... That's why 'he qualified as a *SHILOH* because his PEDIGREE PROVED IT!!!...'"[see Content #28-"Ms Barber again"]

c) And ShenandoahShiloh said: "Heart be still, finally, it is admitted, it is the pedigree that makes a Shiloh a Shiloh, not what registry it belongs with. Thank you for agreeing with what everyone has been saying all along."

d) The logic you use to justify that Cisco and his offspring are "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds is:

Even though Cisco was not ISSR registered when shown and bred as a Shiloh Shepherd:

-Because you established the "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds using certain particular Shiloh Kennel German Shepherd/Malamute lines.

-And because Cisco and his offspring were bred from these same Shiloh Kennel German Shepherd lines

-Cisco and his offspring are therefore "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds.

2)Ms. Barber, throughout the years and throughout all of your communications here, and everywhere, you have also more than repeatedly stated and written that "only dogs having a certificate of registration issued by the ISSR may be considered a Shiloh Shepherd."

(ISSR website home page: http://www.shilohshepherds.org/issr,inc.htm)

And so:

a) A few years ago you decided that your Shiloh lines needed what you called "new blood", to reinvigorate and improve the Shiloh Shepherd breed.

b) You acquired a beautiful German Shepherd dog. He is an Altdeusche Schäferhunde, which is a German line. His name is '"Artus"'.

c) Artus is not the offspring of ISSR dogs (neither ISSR registered Shiloh Shepherd dogs nor ISSR registered German Sheperd dogs)

d) 'Artus's heritage does not reflect the Shiloh Shepherd breed "stock" (as you refer to them) which you used to establish the Shiloh Shepherd breed'.

e) You bred Artus as an "outcross" to some of your Shiloh Shepherd female dogs and produced puppies. These dogs have gone on to produce new generations.

f) You registered Artus, and continue to register many of his offspring, in the ISSR.

g) 'You stated that Artus and his offspring are "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds.' (see: http://www.shilohshepherds.org/shilohs/shilohs.htm -and- http://www.shilohshepherds.com/artus!.htm)

h) The logic you use to justify that Artus and his offspring are "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds is:

Even though Artus did not possess the "heritage" which distinguishes a Shiloh Shepherd:

-Because "only dogs having a certificate of registration issued by the ISSR may be considered a Shiloh Shepherd" (from the homepage of the ISSR website http://www.shilohshepherds.org/issr,inc.htm).

-And, because you registered Artus and many of his offspring in the ISSR

-Artus and his offspring are therefore "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds.

Based on your first assertion (#1 above):

"Genuine" Shiloh Shepherds are dogs whose heritage must originate from your German Shepherd Shiloh Kennel (GSDs/Malamutes)

We should conclude that:

Artus (and consequently, his offspring) can't be "genuine Shiloh Shepherds".

Based on your second assertion (#2 above)

"Only dogs having a certificate of registration issued by the ISSR are "genuine Shiloh Shepherds".

We should conclude that:

Cisco (and consequently, his offspring) can't be "genuine Shiloh Shepherds".

So, for us to to believe your contentions that both Artus (and his offspring) and Cisco (and his offspring) are "genuine Shiloh Shepherds" the following must be true:

Some dogs that are NOT registered in the ISSR, are "genuine Shiloh Shepherds".

(If this is the case, you you might want to consider changing your website)

AND

Some dogs that DO NOT have Shiloh Kennel GSD heritage, are "genuine Shiloh Shepherds".

'Therefore, Ms Barber, when you argue that Shiloh Shepherds registered with the NSBR, TSSR, or SSBA cannot possibly be "genuine" BECAUSE they are either not registered with the ISSR and/or may have pedigrees containing dogs who do not have Shiloh Kennel GSD heritage, your logic is both seriously flawed and completely hypocritical.'

Checkmate. :)Miles

Sorry Miles, but your mixing apples & oranges again ... maybe because you want to bore everyone reading this foolishness??

Why don't you go to http://www.shilohshepherds.info/shilohShepherdsWhatRThey.htm that page clearly explains what criteria WAS used in selecting breeding stock! Many of the dogs in my kennel did NOT make it (that's coming in my NEXT article!) those that did were used to set the foundations for this breed that is STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT via MY recipe, not via *your* papers making every GSD mix an *instant* "shiloh" just so that you can get more money for the pups!!! Tina M. Barber 21:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Content Edit - My reply

Miles/Jenny Dufy:

Nothing I have done has been done in secret. I added notes as to why I added the ESSR to the list.

Quoting your #1 statement in the Dispute Topic: "1)They have agreed/compromised to the inclusion of ALL currently established registries/clubs affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd dog, including the ISSR/SSDCA as an acknowledged Shiloh Shepherd registry/club in the article."

So there you go, you and your group agreed to include ALL established registries and you and your group also voted 'in favor of' including all registries in the Straw Poll. Just because you have never heard of the ESSR does not mean it does not exist and is not a valid registry.

Thank you for your long explanation as to why you moved the link to the bottom of the list.

-Shiloh owner- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.255.84 (talk • contribs)

Thank you M Duffy

For explaining why some dogs are Shilohs and others are not. Although, I'm still terribly confused. And this is not apples and oranges here. When the NSBR started in 2001, we accepted only ISSR papered Shiloh Shepherds. The moment those papers were accepted by the NSBR, Ms Barber said the dogs were no longer Shiloh Shepherds. Isn't it truly strange that a dog can go to bed as a pure breed Shiloh Shepherd and wake up in the morning as a mutt, mixed shepherd, not to mention a shelter dog? I have read the rantings in this thread, and for the life of me, I truly don't understand the reasoning that Ms Barber is using. You are a Shiloh if your pedigree says so, you are also a Shiloh even if your pedigree never says so. That is why I am asking, one more time, please know that every dog that was initially brought into the NSBR as a Shiloh Shepherd had ISSR papers from Ms Barber saying that is what they were. We later found dogs, much like Fisher's Cisco the Kid Spectacular, with heritage saying "Shiloh" in each parent. Of course, they are mutts according to Ms Barber. They are from the same pedigrees that Ms Barber once embraced when she was starting this breed and also embraced in one of her last posts. Again, I ask that all registries and clubs are included in the final Wikipedia Shiloh Shepherd definition. ShilohshepherdJudy

ESSR

(26Dec) I said: "They have agreed/compromised to the inclusion of ALL currently established registries/clubs affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd dog, including the ISSR/SSDCA as an acknowledged Shiloh Shepherd registry/club in the article."

(30Dec) Shiloh Owner said: "So there you go, you and your group agreed to include ALL established registries and you and your group also voted 'in favor of' including all registries in the Straw Poll. Just because you have never heard of the ESSR does not mean it does not exist and is not a valid registry."

Shiloh Owner, please read what I said again (see above "I said:") and look for the word "currently", which you left out in your statement (see above "ShilohOwner said:")

We don't know if the ESSR is currently established . Actually, forget "currently", we don't even know if it is established at all, one reason being that the website linked to its listing in the article is just one-page in length (the homepage) and says ONLY the following (in its entirety and verbatim, i.e. "exactly"):

Welcome by Shiloh Shepherd Europa

"Diese Seiten werden zur Zeit überarbeitet. Wir bitten Sie um etwas Geduld und heissen Sie ab Januar 2006 wieder herzlich Willkommen bei Shiloh Shepherd Europa.

Wir wünschen Ihnen und Ihren Vierbeinern friedvolle Festtage und einen guten Start im neuen Jahr!

We renew our sites, we welcome you again in January 2006 here by Shiloh Shepherd Europa.

English Translation of German (per Babel Fish site):

These sides are at present revised. We ask you for something patience and are called you starting from January 2006 again cordially welcomes with Shiloh Shepherd Europe. We wish friedvolle holidays and a good start you and your Vierbeinern in the new year!

We renew our sites, we welcome you again in January 2006 here by Shiloh Shepherd Europa."

There is no additional information on the website, not even that it is the website of a registry.

There is NO mention of anything other than a message which can be summarized as:

Welcome..Be Patient..Happy Holidays..See you in January 2006

(which is pretty much the same message as the one I received on a Christmas Card last week from a cousin of mine who owes me some money)

Since:

1) There is NO other information on the ESSR website

AND

2) There has been NO information about it of any kind (much less verifiable), heretofore presented to this Talk page group for discussion/agreement/consensus:

We don't even know if it exists.

Shiloh Owner, I have tried to be reasonable (I compromised and left it in the article for now), however since you seem determined to press this issue, please now provide us with verifiable confirmation of the ESSR's current existence as an autonomous Shiloh registry (and not just a "satellite" division of the ISSR registry), at which time we can all discuss justification for why it should be included (Your position: "Just because you have never heard of the ESSR does not mean it does not exist and is not a valid registry".....My position: Well, that does not mean that it DOES exist either). Because, at this point, I have now become convinced that the ESSR link should be removed from the article entirely until unbiased, verifiable information, as to both its existence and validity as an autonomous Shiloh Shepherd registry, has been presented to this forum and a consensus about its inclusion in the article has been reached. 69.173.135.114Thank You. MilesD.(31DEC05 822pm)

Ms. Barber - Logical Conclusions II

Ms. Barber said: "Sorry Miles, but your mixing apples & oranges again... maybe because you want to bore everyone reading this foolishness?? Why don't you go to [link removed] that page clearly explains what criteria WAS used in selecting breeding stock! Many of the dogs in my kennel did NOT make it (that's coming in my NEXT article!) those that did were used to set the foundations for this breed that is STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT via MY recipe, not via *your* papers making every GSD mix an *instant* "shiloh" just so that you can get more money for the pups!!!" (see Content #32 "Ms. Barber-Logical Conclusions I")

Ms. Barber:

I don't have any "papers" other than the ones lining my bird's

(Miss B. Cheex) cage.

I can't "get more money for the pups", or any money for the pups for that matter, ...because I am not a breeder.

Although fully eligible and certainly invited/welcomed, I have never participated in, nor submitted registration paperwork, to either the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, or ISSDC.

And I have read your site thoroughly (You said above: "...that page clearly explains what criteria WAS used in selecting breeding stock!"), and many of the dogs' names referenced throughout are particularly VERY VERY familiar to me, because they are "closely related" to a very important member of my immediate family.

This wonderful family member is MY "backyard, mixed-breed mutt" (who is neutered, because I choose not to breed dogs)" and he is the son of:

Father: Frequent Flyer of Liberty ("Freddie").

Freddie is YOUR ISSR #1 Champion, 2-time Grand Victor (1998 and 1999), the "First", on one of only two? dogs to ever achieve this recognition by YOU in the history of YOUR registry and YOUR breed, a Multi Best in Show Winner and ISSR National Select dog.

YOU say:

"Shiloh Shepherd Champions - The Best of the Best"

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.org/champions.htm)

YOU proclaim:

"1998 Grand Victor" and "1999 Grand Victor"

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.org/98champs.htm)

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.org/99champs.htm)

Mother: Sky's Savannah of Windsong ("Savvy").

Savvy is the daughter of those two dogs YOU have acclaimed as the #1 and #2 HIGHEST RANKED "Register of Merit" (ROM) Shiloh Shepherds in the history of the ISSR registry. Their names are ISSR Grand Victor BIONIC BLACK SMOKE OF ZION (Shep) and WINDSONG'S KATRINKA D'SHILOH (Trinka), a bitch YOU bred and co-owned at one time.

On YOUR website, YOU say: "...ROM proves he can produce excellent progeny. The more R.O.M. points a male accumulates, the greater his value to our breed!!"

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/intro.htm)

On YOUR website, YOU also say: "This (ROM) is a title to be coveted...it clearly shows that the dog can produce quality."

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/romListing.htm)

As the #1 ROM producing dog in the ISSR's history, Shep accumulated 21,980 ROM points in his lifetime. As the #2 ROM producing dog in the ISSR's history, Trinka accumulated 14,735 ROM points in her lifetime, both far exceeding the #3 dog accumulation of 9,585 total points. (Sadly, all three are now deceased)

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/romListing.htm)

On YOUR website, YOU also say the greatest number of points earned to date, by a currently living and breeding, ISSR Shiloh Shepherd is 5,080.

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/romListing.htm)

On YOUR website, YOU also say this dog's name is Trillium Artis zum Soehrewald (Artus)

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/romListing.htm)

(also see Talk page Content #32 (Ms Barber-Logical Conclusions I)

On HER website, the SSDCA/ISSR Excecutive Board of Directors Secretary says that Artus, who lives with her and is now RETIRED, is an imported Altdeusche Schäferhunde (born a German Shepherd and imported from Germany) who is now fully registered as "genuine" Shiloh Shepherd dog in YOUR ISSR registry. ("Introduced" to the breed and added to the ISSR registry, coincidentally, around the same time my backyard, mixed-breed mutt's father, Freddie, was winning YOUR ISSR registry's Top Dog, Champion, first time in Shiloh Shepherd history, 2 time Grand Victor, Multiple Best In Show, ISSR National Select awards).

(see HER webpage: http://www.trilliumshilohs.com/artus!.htm)

On YOUR website, YOU report that, as of 2001 (most current data available), Artus and his progeny had produced at least 24 "genuine" Shiloh Shepherd litters

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/widelyUsedStuds.htm)

In addition, on YOUR website, YOU list another dog, Fisher's Cisco Kid Spectacular (Cisco), now deceased, with a total of 740 ROM points.

(see YOUR webpage: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/romListing.htm)

(also see Talk page Content #32 (Ms Barber-Logical Conclusions I)

But here's what happened:

My backyard, mixed-breed mutt's mother, Savvy, left YOUR ISSR registry to join another Shiloh Shepherd registry.

My backyard, mixed-breed mutt's father, Freddie, left YOUR ISSR registry to join another Shiloh Shepherd registry.

And then, YOU informed me

that my dog "is not a genuine Shiloh Shepherd because his parents are not registered with the ISSR....he is nothing more than a backyard mixed-breed mutt" (YOUR EXACT WORDS - I have retained your correspondence)

So: let me see if I've got this right

The sons/daughters of:

Artus (a German Shepherd dog with 5,080 ROM points and a 1x Grand Victor), who IS registered with the ISSR, BUT IS NOT pedigreed through YOUR "kennel of origin" stock

and the sons/daughters of:

Cisco (a German Shepherd dog with 740 ROM points and a 0x Grand Victor), who IS pedigreed through YOUR "kennel of origin" stock, BUT IS NOT registered with the ISSR (when you initially begin breeding him as "genuine" Shiloh Shepherd and registering his pups as "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds)

ARE "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds (According to YOU)

AND Artus and Cisco ARE "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds (According to YOU)

But:

"My backyard, mixed-breed mutt" the Son of:

Savvy, who IS BOTH registered with the ISSR (before she chooses to leave for another registry), AND "excellently" pedigreed through YOUR "kennel of origin" stock (including parents: #1 and #2 ROM ranking in Shiloh history), with NO "New" German Shepherd bloodlines

and

Freddie (2x ISSR Grand Victor), who IS BOTH registered with the ISSR (before he chooses to leave for another registry), and "excellently" pedigreed through YOUR "kennel of origin" stock (including Captain, Ursa, Kari, Sabrina, Shane, Sasquach, Shaq, Gypsy.....), with NO "New" German Shepherd bloodlines

IS NOT a "genuine" Shiloh Shepherd (According to YOU)

AND Freddie and Savvy ARE NOT "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds (According to YOU)

But, LOGICALLY:

Assuming that Freddie, Savvy, and my dog are not "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds because they are no longer (or not at all, as in my dog's case) registered with the ISSR registry (but do obviously have unbiased, verifiable pedigree credential to qualify, as evidenced by their former membership in YOUR ISSR registry and their heritage, not to mention their accomplishments while ISSR members)...............then Cisco and his descendants are not "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds either since he was not ISSR registered at the time you bred him.

BUT now assuming your claim now that Cisco and his descendants are "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds, even though he was not ISSR registerd...............then Freddie, Savvy and my dog must be "genuine" Shiloh Shepherds, even though though they are not ISSR registered.

But, if you acknowledge that Freddie (your 2x ISSR Grand Victor) and Savvy (a "princess" of Shiloh Shepherd foundation royalty) are "genuine Shiloh Shepherds" ............then you MUST acknowledge that my backyard, mixed-breed mutt is a "genuine" Shiloh Shepherd ............-which means-............YOU MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OTHER DOGS AND THEIR SONS/DAUGHTERS CAN BELONG TO OTHER SHILOH SHEPHERD REGISTRIES (OR NO REGISTRY AT ALL, FOR THAT MATTER) AND STILL BE "GENUINE" SHILOH SHEPHERDS!

(whoops, there it is..as YOU say: FACT, FACT, FACT)

So, Ms. Barber, you have either a dilemma (definition: "a problem involving a difficult, undesirable or unpleasant choice") on your hands .....or else your opposition to the inclusion of the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and ISSDC in, not only this article, but the future of this breed, is illogical and therefore, irrelevant (definition: not having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand; NOT affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion")

(see Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dilemma and http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irrelevant)

I know you say this is all boring foolishness to you, but, as Ricky Ricardo used to say, could you "please 'splain" it to us one more time?

And if, as you say, I'm "mixing apples and oranges", instead of what you seem to be mixing in YOUR recipe, do think there's a possibility my dog might, in actuality, really be MY "genuine" backyard, mixed-breed peach? 69.173.135.114 08:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)MilesD.

Jareth: Listing of Shiloh Registries-A Couple Questions

Jareth: a couple questions please re: the additon of the ESSR to the registry listings in the article.

Shiloh Owner said: "I added notes as to why I added the ESSR to the list." [see Content #33]

Could you please confirm which contributor (signature) added the ESSR website link to the registry list in the article?

Could you please confirm if there are notes attached this edit's history, justifying why the ESSR website link was added to the registry list in the article?

I'm having a little difficulty finding/understanding history re: the signature of the author of this edit or any notes related to it justification for inclusion in the article (I haven't found any posts from Shilow Owner on the Talk page containing these notes either, so this is why I'm looking to history for them). Thank you. 69.173.135.114 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)MilesD.

Wikipedia: What is the status of the Article?

Wikipedia, The goal of this site was to write an honest article of consensus concerning, basically, a blurb about the Shiloh Shepherd for Wikipedia with appropriate links for further informative information; one page with links. Everyone that is on this site should have that goal in mind. Presenting honest, stable facts, to contribute to this article, was the goal.

Here, instead, is what appears it be happening:

It has become a forum for promotional propaganda and other registry bashing statements along with fact twisting statements fueled by one organization and, mostly, by one person that appears to want complete, singular credit for a task accomplished by many. Everyone else on this list is seeking consensus. How, may I ask, is consensus ever going to be accomplished if single-minded people set up continual roadblocks for this consensus, for the seemingly soul purpose of self-promotion and glorification?

This person states that they alone, determines what is and isn’t a Shiloh, thus fueling a debate. As witnessed in multiple statements written throughout this forum, they have declared that unless they alone approve every litter concerning this breed, or declare approval or disapproval over any or every "Shiloh" or "non-shiloh", it is not considered a member of this breed. Thus discord and debate begin.

In all the breeds of this world, I have never heard of one person that totally dominates an already recognized breed. This breed has been established and has been moving forward for years now, away from a single declared dictatorship.

Evidence has been well documented that there are dogs that receive certified Shiloh Shepherd papers from legitimate, reputable and well-known, established registries that follow the founding breed standard. This persons dislike concerning this fact is obvious but should be irrelevant. Therefore, their idea, of total authoritarian should have, immediately, become null and void. I recognize and acknowledge her disturbance over this (I don't agree with it whatsoever), but I cannot understand why Wikipedia is not monitoring its ridiculousness.

How has this even become a disputable issue? Their input into the validity to these separate registries and organization is unequivocally, irrelevant. The Shiloh Shepherd dog is not a trademarked animal or owned by a single person. Nowhere in the history of this world, has one person ever had the audacity to proclaim soul authority or ownership to a classification of a SPECIES of animal. Good heavens, we are talking about a SPECIES of animal here! Is there a breed founder; yes. But history continues from there.

Why have the tools that the Wikipedia moderators/mediators presented, a popular, majority vote, as was taken earlier, not been utilized? What the people voted towards was blatantly and unanimously obvious. We are destined to sit here, spin wheels and allow a podium of propaganda to a single person and organization that contradicts the obvious. Anyone claiming an individual ability to discount Shilohs legitimacy within these other established, reputable, and time proven organizations, shouldn’t be a disputable issue. Where are we in the scheme of getting this article completed, can we have an update? --Iamgateway

See, it would help immensely if people would read the comments on the page. I get the feeling that half of what I say gets ignored. There's an obvious consensus to include the registries, and it was suggested that it be done along the lines of other dog breed articles. I asked earlier twice if using that format would be acceptable and not a single person answered. Since the consensus is to go with the earlier proposal, anyone who wants to change the article to meet that proposal can do so. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE look at comments #10 (Article Suggestion), #14 (Article Suggestion Clarified) and #29 (Suggestion for the History Section - Again).

Is this the suggested format that you are referring to Jareth? If so, does anyone have a legitimate reason as to why the article cannot be changed to the above mentioned suggestion? It follows the format of other dog breed articles on Wikipedia.

SandraSS 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats exactly it actually, since the consensus on the content was reached, I think your suggestion would work best for the format. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply, Jareth. For me, never having traversed this type of forum where post can be placed inside of posts, even internally within the writings of other peoples post (bolded replies within posts), it is difficult to follow and find where the newer additions are being housed. I am reading the responses when I can find them. Even when I look at the history section, many times it does not say whose post I am looking for or where the new post was placed (under what topic), so many times I see evidence of edits but I can not find them. With missing signatures to seperate replies, and a lack of topic subtitle, and with some people using bolds for emphasis verse some people using bolds to write within others posts...I am finding it challenging to seperate and keep track of conversations and edits. It helps me when a new topic is placed at the bottom of the forum (when responding or replying). That enables a quick identification to readers as to recent topic responses and gives a more identifable label to reference previous conversation pertaining to it. Therefore, I would think you are not being ignored as to the high possibility that you are being overlook and lost within the format. I went back found your input under the topic Article Suggested Clarification...was there another location? Where you referring to Sandra SS's write-up that met the consensus but with the addition of listing the registries? I am just not sure what earlier proposal was the one that met consensus...forgive my lack of ability to surf forum history. Questions I still have:

How do we find out exactly how the original consensus statement was written considering the article changes have been ongoing?

As stated above, "anyone who wants to change the article to meet that proposal can do so"....how do we determine when edits are complete and the article can stand as is?

Is there a timeline or a deadline for edit addition?

Are we considering the example identified under Article Suggested Clarification but Sandra SS as our specific format of "other dog breed articles" with the addition of a listing of registries, since the vote was to include them, as the final article for concensus?

Thank-you for the reply, as you can see, other were wondering also and clarification is needed. This is what is needed to move forward. Iamgateway--

I completely understand, the talk page here is much more confusing than most and its easy to have things get lost. The format I was referring to was the format used by other dog breed articles and listed on the dog breed page -- typically articles on dog breeds in Wikipedia link to the registries in the external links section.

The original statment we took the poll on is listed at the very top of the page under Dispute(s). The article as it stands now may meet all those requirements.

Edits aren't ever really complete; we're always interested in improving the article. For most articles, this goes on by having editors come in and add/change/reword at will -- here unfortunately a major dispute started and we had to resolve that first because the article was getting torn up and reverted constantly. Now that we appear to have resolved that issue, with most people agreeing that the ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC all be included in the article, listing the ISSR as the first registry and listing the others without comments (especially omitting the unsubstantiated claims about the others), we should be able to go back to editing as usual. If someone comes along and removes the other registries or adds nasty comments about them, they can just be reverted. Hopefully we'll not have the edit wars happen again.

There's no timelines or deadlines -- everyone can edit Wikipedia at any time. As I said, this was a special case since multiple people were reverting each others changes every few minutes.

Its a good idea to look at the way other dog breed articles have been written; we try to have all the articles on a subject look similar, so the formatting in say the German Shepherd or Australian Cattle Dog article would be a good template to go by when thinking about how to improve this article. You might also find some good ideas at the dog breed project. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Generic

UPDATE

re:UPDATE

re:generic/UPDATE

Let's end this foolishness, OK?

Jareth: Question re: the Straw Poll "Discussion" Section

Question for Windsong /RaidtheWind

Article Suggestion

A Proposal

Article Suggestion: Response

Questions

Article Suggestion Clarified

response

Hobo dogs question

To the Person Considering a Shiloh Shepherd -- by Stu Tarlowe

More Answers

response to mr. tarlowe

Support all points and NSBR

Ooops

Pictures speak louder then words!

Breed Standard

response to ms barbar

Ooops!

response to mr lass

Ms Barber again

Suggestion for the History section - Again

Article content edit - response

.

Ms. Barber - Logical Conclusions I

Article Content Edit - My reply

Thank you M Duffy

ESSR

Ms. Barber - Logical Conclusions II

Jareth: Listing of Shiloh Registries-A Couple Questions

Wikipedia: What is the status of the Article?