Talk:Jacob sheep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Jacob sheep has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
July 3, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

Why Jacob (sheep) and not Jacob sheep?[edit]

It seems to me that the title of this article should be Jacob sheep, rather than Jacob (sheep). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? DiverDave (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem with breed articles. A breed may be "the Something" – for example, there is more than one breed called "the Shetland", and in WP we need to disambiguate these from each other and from the Isles etc of the same name by an epithet: Shetland (sheep), Shetland (cattle). On the other hand, for a relatively few other breeds the type of animal is included in the breed name, so it's the Shetland Sheepdog, American Quarter Horse, Spanish Fighting Bull etc.
So the question is, is it "the Jacob", which happens to be a sheep, or is the breed always called "the Jacob Sheep"? It's not particularly obvious for many breeds, and usage may vary quite a bit even within the same source. I find it helps to imagine the breed in a list with others: would you say "Manx Loaghtan, Jacob, Hebridean", or "Manx Loaghtan, Jacob Sheep, Hebridean"?
I'd say just "Jacob", and that is how this and almost all other sheep breeds are shown in List of sheep breeds. What do you think? Richard New Forest (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate on Richard's comment... it's for disambiguation purposes, and the reason it's parenthetical instead of not is that the name of the breed is simply the Jacob. Any time you'd mention Jacobs in conversation (like this one) where you know you're discussing sheep and not say, the Jacobs family, you wouldn't constantly say "Jacob sheep". If you look at the list of sheep breeds it's sort of the convention we've chosen. Steven Walling 22:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thank you both for your help! Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DiverDave. I'll be updating this page with my comments as I go along and will fill out the checklist at the end; please let me know if you have any comments or concerns. – anna 10:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

General[edit]

  • Green tickY Chronologically, it would make more sense to place the history section first (would lead into conservation rather nicely). This seems to be the convention followed in many animal breed GAs and sheep breed articles, but it's your call.
  • Green tickY The taxobox was used, even though {{Infobox sheep breed}} is available. Is it deprecated, or is there another reason to avoid using it? Taxobox may be misleading in this context.
  • Green tickY Is there a reason to use very small headings (prefaced by semicolons) instead of those at level 3? Largely personal preference, but possibly worth mentioning in case you'd like those sections to appear in the table of contents.
  • Green tickY Last sentence of "Husbandry" has a citation needed tag: "Fences should be close-woven to minimize the possibility of horns getting caught." (Wikipedia's not a guide on caring for sheep — maybe remove?)
  • Green tickY Sentence in "Wool and hides" has a citation needed tag: "This is called 'quilted fleece' and is an undesirable trait."
I have added the missing inline citation. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY I've removed the category "Herbivorous animals" — it's unnecessary for a breed.

Lead[edit]

  • Made more copyedits. Summarizes article well.
  • Would a mention of Tay-Sachs be warranted? I think that it's covered in enough detail to work in the lead.

History[edit]

Please don't be intimidated by the quantity — many are simple wording suggestions or queries.

  • Green tickY First paragraph might flow a little more if tidbit about being named after Jacob is placed nearer to the second sentence, although I see why it also has relevance to the art piece
I rewrote the first 3 paragraphs in an attempt to improve the flow. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "It is possible that the resulting breed may have accompanied the westward expansion of human civilization through Northern Africa, Sicily, Spain and eventually England." — remove "It is possible that"; redundant
redundant text has been removed. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Inconsistent? Beginning of third paragraph states that theory about fat-tailed sheep is alternate and possibly related, but the last sentence says that there is no compelling evidence. If that's the case, is undue weight being given to this apparently spurious theory? It's either worth explaining a little more or rewording, since one reads that paragraph assuming it's valid and then reaches the last sentence, which seems to state the opposite.
paragraph has been reworded in an attempt to remove inconsistency: though the historical record has only scant evidence, recent genetic studies provide compelling evidence. I hope this is clear enough. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. – anna 08:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Remove external link to "Leviticus 3:9"?
external link has been removed. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "There is however no compelling evidence from historical records to suggest that the Jacob is descended from the fat-tailed sheep, or any other breed of sheep from the Middle East." -> "However, there is no compelling evidence from historical records to suggest that the Jacob is descended from the fat-tailed sheep or any other Middle Eastern breed."?
I removed this sentence altogether. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Consider merging shipwreck legend with fat-tailed sheep legend, if both are of similar veracity (you'll know whether this is the case or not, so a comment explaining would be appreciated)]
  • Green tickY Wrong source for "At that time, Jacobs were often kept as ornamental animals grazed in parks, which probably kept the breed extant." (found in source #1)
I have replaced inline citation with the correct source. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "At that time, Jacobs were often kept as ornamental animals grazed in parks ..." -> "At the time, Jacobs were often kept as ornamental or "park" animals ..." (jibes with source)
I think this is better now (?) DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "Jacobs were ideal for this role, as they were picturesque but required minimal care." is verbatim from source #1
I removed this sentence altogether. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "Scant selection occurred for anything but hardiness, spots, and four horns." same as above (and it's awkwardly worded) — meaning is somewhat ambiguous so I'm afraid I can't offer any specific suggestions, as I'm sure you'll know what it's supposed to say
I removed this sentence altogether. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "The result was an unimproved breed that looked after itself well" — what, exactly, does this mean in the context?
I removed this sentence altogether. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Will assume good faith that the offline citation mentions Jacobs specifically as guard sheep
Thank you! DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "A commonly-held but mistaken belief is that the Jacob is a descendant of a subarctic breed of sheep brought by Vikings during the Middle Ages." — who holds this belief? Are there any sources that say it is commonly-held or a frequent misconception?
I have replaced the text "A commonly-held but mistaken belief is that the Jacob..." with "Some people believe that the Jacob...", and added an inline citation to support this assertion. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY To keep things in rough chronological order, entire paragraph should probably be moved
I have moved the paragraph to maintain chronological order. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "remained rare in America until recently" — is there a specific year or decade, or even a range?
replaced "remained rare in America until recently" with "remained rare in America until the 1980s." DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "Most of today’s population of American Jacobs is descended from imports since around 1980." -> "Most of the current American Jacob population is descended from 1980s imports." (may not be the best way to word, perhaps you can think of a better one)
replaced "Most of today’s population of American Jacobs is descended from imports since around 1980." with "Most of today’s population of American Jacobs is descended from imports since that time." DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just done a small copyedit on that sentence, let me know if I've changed the meaning. – anna 08:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "Jacobs have become quite popular among small flock holders as well as handspinners and weavers." -> "Jacobs have become quite popular among small flock holders, handspinners and weavers." (what does "quite" mean here?)
I have removed the unnecessary word, "quite". DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservation status[edit]

  • Green tickY "The breed is estimated to have fewer than 1,000 annual registrations in the United States and a global population estimated at fewer than 5,000." -> "The breed is estimated to have fewer than 1,000 annual registrations in the United States and a global population of less than 5,000."?
  • Green tickY "...; identifying and recording the purebred Jacob population continues to be a challenge for American breeders." -> "...; identifying and recording purebreds is a continual challenge for American breeders." (redundancy, simplicity?)
    • Green tickY On that note, is it the responsibility of breeders or the overseeing body to record purebreds? I understand identification, but recording specifically may need to be explained a little bit.
It is not the breeders responsibility, but rather that of the breed registries. Thanks for pointing this out. I have rewritten the entire section, addressing all of the aforementioned concerns to the best of my ability. DiverDave (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I've made two small modifications; as always, if I've botched the meaning, I can be reverted. – anna 21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Physical characteristics[edit]

  • Green tickY You could condense the following if wanted; minor point and in no way essential: "Jacobs are small, multi-horned, piebald sheep that resemble goats in their conformation. The Jacob is not however the only breed that may produce polycerate and/or piebald offspring." -> "The Jacob is a small, multi-horned, piebald sheep that resembles a goat in its conformation, though it is not the only breed that can produce polycerate or piebald offspring."
    • Green tickY Same as above, flows better: "Other polycerate breeds include the Hebridean, Icelandic, Manx Loaghtan, and the Navajo-Churro. Other piebald breeds include the Finnsheep and the West African Dwarf." -> "Other polycerate breeds include the Hebridean, Icelandic, Manx Loaghtan, and the Navajo-Churro, and other piebald breeds include the Finnsheep and the West African Dwarf."
I have rewritten the paragraph. It now reads: "The Jacob is a small, multi-horned, piebald sheep that resembles a goat in its conformation. However, it is not the only breed that can produce polycerate or piebald offspring. Other polycerate breeds include the Hebridean, Icelandic, Manx Loaghtan, and the Navajo-Churro, and other piebald breeds include the Finnsheep and the West African Dwarf." This does flow better—thank you! DiverDave (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Maybe? "The rams have short scrotums free of wool, holding the testicles closer to the body than modern breeds. The ewes have small udders free of wool that are also held closer to the body than in modern breeds." -> "The rams have short scrotums free of wool which hold the testicles closer to the body than those of modern breeds, while the ewes have small udders free of wool that are also held closer to the body than those of modern breeds."
I have rewritten the sentence. It now reads: "The rams have short scrotums free of wool which hold the testicles closer to the body than those of modern breeds, while the ewes have small udders free of wool that are also held closer to the body than those of modern breeds." DiverDave (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Made some other small copyedits -- let me know if they're okay.
Your copyedits are fine. Thanks for taking the time to read this article so carefully! DiverDave (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem, it's been a pleasure! Great job with it. Annatalk 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're free to ignore everything from here on out since Wizardman is wrapping this up, but see below -- I'll leave comments anyway; do what you like with them. Just suggestions! (Also applies to husbandry, Tay-Sachs, and lead.)

  • Made some routine copyedits that I think improve the flow, but are open to discretion.
  • "There is no such thing as a polled purebred Jacob." -- this seems like it may be a little bit redundant when taking the prior sentence into account. Also, "is considered an indication" seems weaker and less authoritative than "there is no such thing".
  • "strongly attached to the skull" -- are any horns attached weakly to a skull?
  • "Rams have larger horns than ewes." -- remove? This is already stated in the previous paragraph and seems a bit out of place.
  • "Some individual sheep may develop a natural "break" in the fleece" -- not sure I understand what this means.

Husbandry[edit]

  • Once again, more copy-edits -- the sections are a lot shorter when I make those changes as I go along! As always, revert if you prefer the old version.
  • "easy-lambing" may not be intuitive to the layperson.

Comments[edit]

  • It says "corresponds roughly to 32.7–27.9 microns average fiber diameter". I think this might be more universal and easier to read as 'corresponds to an average fiber diameter of about 32.7–27.9 micrometers
I have replaced the text "which corresponds roughly to 32.7–27.9 microns average fiber diameter, or Low 1/4 Blood to 1/4 Blood on the American or Blood grading system." with "which corresponds to an average fiber diameter of about 32.7–27.9 micrometers, or Low 1/4 Blood – 1/4 Blood on the American or Blood grading system." DiverDave (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It says "generally 3-5 inches and may be up to 7 inches" and "weighs 3-6 pounds". These need conversions.
I have added conversion templates for these units. Thanks for your suggestions! DiverDave (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise it's quite an extensive article. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good. It's now looking good to me. Lightmouse (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? Started well but it's been a couple weeks since any comments. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Left a comment on DiverDave's page last week -- I don't have much time atm but will be resuming this weekend; I want to give it my full attention. Hope that's okay – anna 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we still making progress on this review? WP:There is no deadline, but this review is #2 at WP:GAN/R#Old reviews, so it seems to be going more slowly than average. Sometimes that indicates only that the people are busy in real life (and there really is no deadline), but if you need help, please leave a note at WT:WikiProject Good articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll wrap up the review since it seems to have been abandoned. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

  • "The Jacob is indeed named for the Biblical figure of Jacob" I'd take out the indeed. combining with the sentence above may help too, i.e. "Jacob, the sheep's namesake, ..."
  • "Norsemen are indeed believed to have introduced" as above.
  • "There is no such thing as a polled purebred Jacob)" rm parenthesis, as I didn't see a preceding ( anywhere.
  • "white horns are undesirable." undesirable to the sheep themselves or humans?

I'll put the article on hold for a couple days and will pass it once these few issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)




Putting this down here so as to avoid interfering -- DiverDave and Wizardman, I sincerely apologize for not finishing this up much sooner. I had absolutely intended to do so but was dealing with a variety of real life issues this month (and part of last) that prevented me from spending time on Wikipedia. Thank you for picking up where I left off.

I think I'll post all of my other comments under the above headings as a sort of peer review; hopefully neither of you mind. Once again, I apologize -- never intended to let this hang for so long! Annatalk 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made my final comments above. I enjoyed the review process and learned a lot about how to make it move more efficiently, which is always a plus! Thanks again for your patience, and for the quick replies to my many nitpicky comments about the article (which is great). Best wishes, Annatalk 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the suggested edits above, and your copyedits do look good. Everything checks out now, you got most of it reviewed so there wasn't too much I needed to check. Since everything checks out now, I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, new to the commenting and not sure I have this right. I added a link to owner reviews of Jacob Sheep but it was removed as spam. http://www.rightpet.com/Livestock-poultryDetail/jacob-sheep Site is an educational site where owners do numerical and written reviews of the breeds/ species of animals they own. [[User:bretthodges| —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Weight and so on[edit]

I've made a few small changes to this page over the last few days, but thought I'd start a bit of discussion here before making too many more. I think there a number of problems here, of which the most glaring is WP:Weight: there's a huge section on Tay-Sachs disease, far larger than the section on the sheep in our page on that disease, but no discussion of the (rather interesting) genetic causes for the spotted coat and extra horns; there's a lot of Biblical mythology about other sheep in a far-away place and a long-ago time, but very little on the history of this sheep in Britain in the last few hundred years; there's a large and over-detailed section on the export of a small herd to Israel, but no discussion of other countries where these sheep are reared (Germany, Holland, where else?); there's a lot about Jacobs in the United States, where there are rather few of them, and very little about them in the UK, where there are rather a lot. There's fairly extended discussion of Fat-tailed sheep and Northern European short-tailed sheep, two breed groups that this sheep doesn't belong to. There's no mention of the origin given by the breed society (yes, not necessarily a reliable source) – imports from Spain by landowners as park animals – or of the supposed origin of the use of the "Jacob" name (I'll have to search for that, I forget now where I read it and whether it was a useable source).

I'm also uncomfortable about the identification of the four-horned ram skull in Bordeaux as belonging to this breed, as I see nothing in the original Flickr posting to suggest that it does. FunkMonk, your name is on that upload, can you remember why you chose that filename? And while we're at it, that's a nice Rubens, but those sheep are not this sheep – why is it relevant here?

Unless anyone offers any objection, I plan to prune the Tay-Sachs and Israel sections fairly drastically; but I'm fully open to reasons as to why I should not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It was fairly long time ago, I probably just thought it was the only breed with four horns, and didn't do as much research either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, FunkMonk! I've removed it for now as uncertain. I don't see that there are many or any four-horned sheep in France, but there seem to be some in Algeria; without a look at the label of the exhibit, or a catalogue of the museum, I don't think we're likely to get a certain answer on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Jacob sheep skulls seem to be exhibited in other French museums:[1] But it of course does not show what the Bordeaux skull belongs to... In any case, we do have another photo of a skull[2], which might be interesting to show. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, FunkMonk! – I don't know why I didn't think to look for that for myself. Now added. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
On this note, would also be nice to show a ram with really pronounced horns (in front view), such as here:[3] The current infobox image is a better photo, so shouldn't be replaced, but it just doesn't really give a good view of the horns, which is probably what the breed is best known for. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference error[edit]

Please change the text:

A [[breed society]], the Jacob Sheep Society, was formed in July 1969.{{r|jsc}}

to:

A [[breed society]], the Jacob Sheep Society, was formed in July 1969.{{r|jsc2}}

in order to fix the reference error I've created. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Sheep Connection to Israel[edit]

<POV neutrality issues>

It has come to my attention that a Wikipedia user has consistently eliminating the section connecting the Jacob Sheep breed to Israel. Indeed there was a Jacob Sheep flock that made it to Israel, drawing national and international headlines in 2016, and the development is noteworthy to an encyclopedia article. The reason why the whole section has to be wiped out and any mention of Israel removed does not portray a fair description of developments regarding the breed.

The Jacob Sheep arrival in Israel has started a movement with many wanting the animals to eventually be the "national animal" and is an ongoing current event. The breed is linked to Israel whether Wiki user likes it or not and an attempt should be made to be factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talkcontribs) 12:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion, ZionistLantern. I see that you are a very new user, so you may not be familiar with our policy on neutral point of view in general, and in particular with the section on weight. I invite you to read about those things. The recent export of a small flock of these sheep from Canada to Israel has not been removed from the article, but reduced and moved to the paragraph about the various small populations of the breed outside its country of origin, the United Kingdom. I have also similarly reduced a large section on the (very rare) occurrence of Tay-Sachs disease in this breed, for exactly the same reason – its size was out of proportion to its importance to the subject of the page. I plan to similarly reduce sections on Biblical history (which is relevant only to the origin of the name), on fat-tailed sheep (which as far as I can discover is of exactly no relevance at all), and on northern European short-tailed sheep (also of only marginal relevance, since this sheep does not belong to that group). I also intend to include some of the actual history of the breed, which is almost entirely absent from the page as it stands (from its origins in the 16th/17th centuries to the first written references in the nineteenth century, the first description in the early twentieth, and its establishment and recognition as a breed a few decades ago), and to expand the sections on its two most remarkable characteristics, its coat and its horns. I'd be delighted if you would like to help with some of that.
You might also like to read a bit about what Wikipedia is not, including particularly the sections on why it is not a soapbox and not a current events site. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I have been following the back and forth reversions here, and I think that the former text was excessive, but now the reader is left wondering why these sheep have been introduced to Israel. I think it warrants at least a brief explanation of why they should supposedly be important to Israel, just so we know why they were put there. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User, thanks for the feedback. There needs to be a way to accurately portray the developments that is happening. In Israel, the Jacob Sheep are a big deal and in fact the Hebrew Wiki has a section on Jacob Sheep in Israel. The article should make it clear that there are Jews that legitimately believe these are the flock of the Patriarch Jacob. How this is portrayed can be discussed, but should not be dismissed.

In addition, saying the Jacob Sheep originate in the United Kingdom is not an accurate depiction of the breed. The Jacob Sheep Society of the United Kingdom themselves suggest a Middle Eastern origin of the breed as does (to a lesser degree but still) the American Jacob Sheep Breeders Association. There are multiple verifiable facts and the article should not portray one over the other.

Further discussion and changes as to a more neutral article that depicts all the facts is welcome.

Unless you can provide reliable sources then we can add nothing, and repeatedly adding a POV tag is not helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User Theroadislong, there was a section with full references on the site but was continuously deleted. If I will reconstruct a section, I want guarantees hat the section will not be continuously deleted but rather discussed here to cover all relevant issues.

A new condensed section is being added on Israel. It will be backed by references.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talkcontribs) 18:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) 
FunkMonk, do you want to do that, then? I don't think I'd make a good job of it, as the only possible explanation I can find is fundamental misconception of what this breed is and where it came from. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If it is a common misconception, Wikipedia would be a good place to set the facts straight. But I don't know anything about this issue at all, so I wouldn't really be able to do much. I would imagine all that would need to be added is that they have been planted in Israel due to a belief that they are related to the original sheep of Jacob, or some such. --FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The new changes, in the form of a sentence is insubstantive. It is not simply a couple that thinks the sheep are from Genesis, but is a movement in the country. It should be its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talkcontribs) 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can provide reliable sources then we can add nothing, and repeatedly adding a POV tag is disruptive and unhelpful. Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Sheep Connection to Israel (neutrality)[edit]

This is now the second time this section has been deleted from the talk section. The article is not neutral because only one point of view regarding origin (United Kingdom) is presented when both the Jacob Sheep Society of the UK and the Jacob Sheep Breeders Association suggest other origin.

In addition, the article minimizes any connection the animal has both to the Jewish people and Israel, and shutting this out by deleting is not going to change the truth behind the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talkcontribs) 18:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned with your truth or anyone else's truth. Wikipedia only reports on what the reliable sources say about a subject, you have not provided any sources yet? Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The article doesn't suggest they originated in the United Kingdom it says they probably came from Far East, Middle East, and Mediterranean regions and or Syria. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
ZionistLantern, Theroadislong, it seems to me that there's a lot of stuff in this article that is poorly or barely supported by reliable sources, and any origin in the the Middle East seems to be one of those things. This is a British breed; it derives (at least in part) from sheep brought to Britain from the Iberian peninsula some hundreds of years ago. As far as I can see, anything about origins before that is pure WP:OR. The name of the breed derives from an imagined similarity to sheep in a biblical story. Apart from that, the only demonstrable connection it has with Israel is that a few were taken there recently; that, and that alone, is amply supported by the various news sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Based on a reliable source, I added mention that the importation to Israel was motivated by people who believe the breed was mentioned in Genesis, but also neutralized the earlier claim that implied that believe is correct. I think the article should fairly represent both sides now. -- Beland (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The editing is locked (due to intermediate edits) for this article, making visual editing very difficult. Can the user that locked the editing please disable it allowing visual editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talkcontribs) 08:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation, close paraphrasing[edit]

I'm disturbed to find just how much the phrasing in this article resembles the phrasing of the sources. An example:

Our article The source
Piebald sheep have been described throughout history, appearing in works of art from the Far East, Middle East, and Mediterranean regions. Sheep with spots have been described in many cultures throughout history, appearing in works of art from the Far East, Middle East, and Mediterranean regions.

In my opinion that goes well beyond close paraphrasing – I'll remove it in a moment. It was added with this edit in 2010. DiverDave, would you care to comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There is also content copied and pasted from this copyrighted source [4] Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It just gets worse and worse:
Our article The source
Using retroviruses as genetic markers, the authors found that sheep dispersed across Eurasia and Africa via at least two separate migratory episodes. Descendants of the first migrations include the Mouflon, as well as ... A later migratory episode shaped the great majority of present-day breeds. By using endogenous retroviruses as genetic markers, we found that sheep differentiated on the basis of their “retrotype” and morphological traits, dispersed across Eurasia and Africa via separate migratory episodes. Relicts of the first migrations include the Mouflon, as well as ... A later migratory episode, involving sheep with improved production traits, shaped the vast majority of present-day breeds.
What do you think, blank and list, or can we deal with it without? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately we don't need to worry about petmapz – that is surely a copy of our page. One less thing … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance tags[edit]

There's been a lot of adding and removing of maintenance tags to and from this article. Some of that was me – I added {{disputed}} and {{close paraphrasing}} a few days ago. Personally, I'd like those, and the {{POV}} placed by someone else, to stay on the page until there's agreement here that those issues have been dealt with. Until the previous content has all been checked against the sources, I won't be confident that all the copyvio problems have been removed; the alternative is to blank the page and list it at WP:CP, but that seems a bit like overkill. And I certainly dispute the inclusion of a story from a religious text in a way that suggests that it might be factual. Beland has added a good paragraph, "Some believe …" (thank you, Beland!). But why do we need that here? This encyclopaedia should be repository of knowledge, not a repository of unfounded and misguided beliefs. I note, for example, that our article on the History of Earth does not contain any discussion at all of the many mythical explanations of the creation; that seems to me a good example which would we do well to follow here – except that here, a reference to the biblical story is needed to explain the modern name of the breed. I have made a request at WP:RX for some sources that might help improve the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: We link to dating creation from age of the universe because we have separate articles for the scientific consensus vs. diversity of religious views about that subject. We briefly discuss creationism on evolution and link to articles about the controversy and religious viewpoints. I just added a similar link from History of Earth to creation myth because we do have extensive coverage of those. In all of those cases, the non-scientific viewpoint is notable enough that we have separate articles to cover them. That makes the scientifically-focused articles a lot less confusing, of more reasonable length, and more coherent with respect to the type of evidence they are explaining. In the case of Jacob sheep, there's not enough to say about the non-scientific viewpoint to justify a separate article, so all of the coverage needs to go on this article. The dispute over whether the modern breed is discussed in the Bible is notable — it's gotten international news coverage, and indeed it's the only reason I've heard about this breed at all. Explaining that some people believe the two are the same is necessary to explain why the breed has been imported to Israel. Excluding that from the encyclopedia entirely would generate complaints (as happened above) that this viewpoint is not being fairly represented, and though I am unconvinced that viewpoint is factually accurate, I agree that the complaint is legitimate. This dispute will also be the reason many readers are coming to this article, so I think it's useful to present it if only to explain the objections to it. Right now, the article is doing that in what I think is an appropriately brief way. Perhaps there are more interesting things to say about the convertoversy, but I wouldn't want to trim coverage of it beyond perhaps using more concise language. -- Beland (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)