This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The article is factual and omits discussions of the controversy surrounding the standard definition of an azawakh, it presents information about the standard from both sides of the azawakh controversy.(Europeans vs Americans or Defined Standard vs Natural Standard)
The azawakh has only been introduced in Europe in the last 20-30 years and as such has a spectrum of variable phenotypes. France is admitedly the nation with one of the biggest populations of Azawakhs outside of Africa and they are thus a powerful force behind the recognition of the Azawakh as a breed. In fact, the FCI recognizes the Azawakh, while the AKC is only in the process of certifying the breed (they need several generations of American-bred pedigrees to do so). Building on the strength of their breeding program, a group of Azawakh French breeders has decided to define what are the acceptable traits for the Azawakh breed. There is a heated debate as to the true motives behind this choice, but I won't get into that. On the other hand, the American Azawakh Association has taken another stance, they want to define the breed in terms of the naturally occuring phenotypes (coat colors and markings). The French stance on coat colors and markings is in keeping with the historical inclination of European breeders to want to create a uniform and optimal standard, but creating a uniform standard is by no mean the apriori right thing to do.
Isn't a priori categorization/standardization at the root of all breeds of dog? After all, the only reason we use different terms to identify different groups of dogs is to organize them by characteristic, whether those be phenotypal or not. I am having a hard time really understanding this NPOV claim. In the article it mentions the FCI as providing one standard... if you believe there is another valid standard, then by all means, feel free to edit it. Im removing this one from the list. Flying Hamster 05:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this breed the 'Wuolo' dog mentioned in Roots or is it another? Mali is the closest of countries with a specific breed listed. Cole 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The article could use a new image. The dog in the picture currently used appears starved, and doesn't define the colors very well.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Azawakh/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The appearance section should be divided into subsections. The "living with an Azawakh" section has significant style issues regarding informality and the use of second-person pronouns (i.e. "you", see WP:STYLE#Avoid second-person pronouns), and this section should be merged into the temperament section. The bottom three paragraphs of the appearance section shouldn't be in that section at all. Needs health section and references. --Pharaoh Hound(talk) 14:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Last edited at 14:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)