Talk:New Guinea singing dog/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Singer names

Names used for Singers seems important especially nowadays with computers because of key words. There are a couple more names in common use that we thought could be added: New Guinea Dingo, Stone Age Dog(don't really care for this one). I think the name New Guinea Dingo is important for several reasons. It also has historic value as it used to be used quite a lot especially in Europe. Could it be added to whichever version is used? Also, what's the latest taxonomic classification now? I see C.l. dingo is back on the page. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We need an entire discussion on names - adding an new name called NG Dingo, is confusing. But if you really think Singers are part of Dingos, you should merge your content with the Au dingo article.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

mrsh, What the heck are you talking about. Check the taxonomic classification. read your Singer history even some of the modern lit on Singers. Why are you arguing for not including a name that is already in use many other places including the taxonomic classification??? Remember the Wilton etal DNA study, Duh!!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure the taxonomic classification that someone changes is correct - still in dispute. Why do you want to create a new name - you are just confusing the issue.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether she is open for arguments. As for the names, well we need at least something like a Newspaper-article or a book on the subject. Otherwise we can't just add names without a reliable source. There was something similar in the dingo-article about someone who wanted to add Degger Dog but had no reliable source.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, That's OK really and we'll find the sources. It's a nit pick anyway. In a year or two when the various names become included in writings, other names can be included. No big deal. I was thinking I'd seen New Guinea Dingo is some German references someplace too. The major thing should be that NGSDs are considered a wild dog from New Guinea, not a domestic one. Neither the current DNA study by the Wilton team of 37 researchers or the fact that NGSD have a once-a-year heat cycle would support the domestic dog label. Additionally there has been quite a lot of literature written that clearly states NG natives have not domesticated NGSD. Rather, they captured and tamed them. They have not intentionally bred them in any organized fashion. The same is true of other wild dogs that have had contact with native tribes or peoples. The Carolina Dog is a good example. Even the New Guinea Village Dogs seem to have simply roamed about mostly not owned by anyone. Actually that lack of intentional breeding of NGSD by the natives is part of the reason the NGSD living near villages became hybridized. It's only logical. In the western world we immediately took precautions to protect and isolate NGSD specimens for the very specific reason of preserving their purity. For example, at our facility we don't tolerate accidental breedings and go to great lengths to prevent it. Even the accidental breeding of close bloodlines is taboo since our goal is to enhance and preserve genetic diversity. Those of us in the United States and Canada who started conserving NGSD 20 plus years ago realized immediately that our goal in life had to be to preserve the genes. I received an email last night from a family who purchased 3 NGSD in 1972-73 from a zoo.(I know, there's no literary reference to these 1970's zoo to private owner sales. but they did exist. The author just didn't know it when she wrote her stuff.) Even back then in 1972 those people realized the importance of protecting and perpetuating something NG natives failed to do. That is why the captive Singers for the most part are pure NGSD, not hybrids. We've been very careful to protect the genetics as well as keep good records. There is no way to ascertain the purity of dogs sighted in the wild without conducting a definitive DNA test. In the wiki article we can say nothing definitive about whether or not there are still pure Singers in the wild. No one knows one way or the other so the wording needs to be thought through carefully. Neither do we know one way or another whether or not the sighted dogs are hybrids so we cannot even postulate that they might be or our words become subjective and suggestive. We have to stick to the facts and say that although sightings have been made, no specimen or sample has been obtained that would prove the sightings purity or impurity. Singers are certainly not a feral dog. There is no research or evidence to support the definition of feral. By the same token, many of us subscribe to the theory that NGSD have been historically for thousands of years living in a commensal state and we'd like to see that theory proven, but alas there is nothing to support it either, so it seems to us it would be best to call NGSD "wild dogs" for that is in fact, what they really are. Any other designation injects subjective conjecture into the writings. No room for subjectivity in a wiki article, Right?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense but there are a few flaws in your statements: 1. a one-year-heat cycle also accours among domestic dogs. 2. The vast majority of dogs are not selectively bred. 3. The Eipo tribe did breed the Singers as far as I know. 4. Why is the Singer not a domestic dog? Or more precise, what actually is a domestic dog in your eyes?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho. I'm not offended. Heck most of the time I'm not smart enough to even realize when I've been offended. I've never debated this issue with anyone except myself and that really wasn't much of a challenge. I'm quite sure that you have debated it with others so you've had some practice. Therefore, I'm at an immediate disadvantage. Additionally, there are other fish to fry that are of more importance, so let us put this debate on a back burner for now so that I may have a chance to get my ducks in a row. There is just one question I would like to ask you: What canine(s) do you consider as wild dog(s) that should not be thought of as domesticated? If you will answer this one question for me, it will allow me to conduct further research into this enigmatic query. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now you good to the core of the dilemma. I call it "domestic=domesticated?". It's easier in my language because the word for domestic dog (the literal translation is house dog) has no similarity with domestication. The problem is here, and I still haven't found the solution, what do you see as domestication. If you equalize domestic dog with domesticated dog and domestication as direct artificial selection by humans, than the wild Singers and Dingoes are clearly not domesticated, however neither would be my own dog since she is not the product of direct artificial selection, and it would be the same for every feral and street dog. However as far as I know all have certain traits that are regarded as specific traits of the domestic dog. Therefore before we proceed you have to tell me what you mean by the word "domesticated", otherwise we two might argue in completely opposite directions.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, It is difficult for us to really understand what you are saying. The language barrier is very confusing and what you are saying is perceived by us as being unclear and basically double talk. In the interest of the dogs in question, we suggest that you drop the use of domestic and domesticated completely and call NGSD a race or a landrace. The fact that you have a cur dog as a pet has nothing to do with NGSD since NGSD are not cur dogs aka mixed dogs, mixed breed, mutt, crossbred, hybrid, street dog, village dog, or any other synonyms. They could be called wild dogs and I think that would be accurate for they are in fact a wild dog. I think landrace or race of dog would better describe them as a landrace is a group of animals similar to a breed that has developed special same traits over a period of time. Let us call them dogs, but stay away from the controversial terminology and ideas associated with the words breed, domestic, domesticated, feral, and hybrid. These terms are viewed by NGSD conservationists as negative and belittling and you will never be able to convince NGSD people otherwise. In other words, by pursuing the use of the words, feral, breed, hybrid, domestic and domesticated, you are basically alienating all Singer conservators. Why would you want to make so many enemies? What's the logic or what would be your reason for wanting to try to stuff these words down especially American and Canadian conservationist's throats? If you stick to "wild dog" and/or "landrace" when you speak of NGSD you will be using "neutral" terms not beset by controversial remarks. If you simply want to belittle researchers and argue with people, then by all means continue along your current course, but we're not sure that your course is compatible with wiki guidelines. Are you within wiki guidelines to question and belittle every researcher anyone brings up who disagrees with you? Are you within wiki guidelines to write an article that is basically negative toward the animal you're supposed to be describing? In our opinion you are slowly removing yourself from the mainstream of this revision by projecting yourself as being always correct and not allowing the ideas of other editors. We think you are backing yourself into a corner both in this article as well as in the dingo article. This is how we see things at this point. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Breed of Dog???

Editors, I can buy into the idea that NGSD could be considered a breed of wild dog. But at least in New Guinea they are and never have been a domesticated breed of dog and they cannot be feral because to be feral a dog has to have been domesticated first and then reverted to the wild. There is no body of evidence to show that NGSD have ever been domesticated in NG or before NG for that matter. Just because someone transported them to NG from another land doesn't mean they were domeestic animals. They may have been captured and brought along as food for the voyage?? Who's to say? They do meet all the criteria of a breed of wild dog. Such is not the case for those Singers in captivity. They have been evolving into a breed of domestic dog for fifty +- years. How have others handled this? How about Besenji's? 0sm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that there is no body of evidence that they have ever been domesticated?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, Why would you say they have been domesticated?? osm2oOldsingerman20 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is evidence for this yes. Their morphology and the fact that the five that were sent to Kiel came from the Eipo tribe that breed them as social partners and playmates for their children, that is very likely. And since you are a breeder, don't you also select which one mates with which one? And further, "domestic dog" doesn't mean domesticated, not when you define domestication as artificial selection by humans, since in that case any dog that is the product e.g. of two street dogs would no longer be domesticated but it would still be a domestic dog.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A Path Forward - A Suggestion to a better article

Fellow editors, as you know I strongly disagree with wiping the existing NGSD article clean like it was done this week and replacing with entirely new content. This is the wrong way to approach improving an existing article, regardless of whether specific content is right or wrong. A couple of items to talk through first.

1. Taxonomy - the taxonomy is anything but clear and I believe the current change to Dingo is wrong. I need time to articulate proposed text that address the confusion. For those that believe that NGSD should be part of the Dingo article, you should merge your material with them and leave this article alone. We should have an entire section of the article devoted where the NGSD fits or doesn't fit, including theories (backup with research, we hope).

2. Let's agree on the article sections title and the general content to be included within said sections. A good article does not try to be . Concise is better then a rambling mess. Let's look at established article/template first and not try to create everything from scratch.

3. After agreement on sections, let's take a stab at the actual text. We have most of it written in all probablity from the proposed new article and from the existing article.

4. Finally, let's build a quality article - lots of help within wiki or wiki books (John Broghton's guide is good). This means to me that we should not write an article that is too indepth, when existing website information can be used to answer more questions in depth.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

mrsh, We particularily like #4. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't trust you horseracer. Simple as that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

osm20 - I would read mrsh's suggestion #4 again. Referencing existing website information will bring us right back to square one as soon as she drops the published literature bomb again. Although I beleive that all three of us (mrsh, osm20, and myself) might disagree with Inu's domestic tag placed on the NGSD, he spent much time and effort putting together a diverse and more complete NGSD page with referenced info from many different and neutral sources. Let's roll with his version and work to find better taxon references/opinions for his version. Tomcue2 (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Again Cue, wiki rules and standard processes require verifiable sources. Ive asked for independent editor assessment of our situation. Stay Tuned.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wiki lesson but from your very arrival back in mid January you have been removing other peoples contributions (even to the original article) without asking for citations, references, or even giving warnings. You just remove information at your leisure based upon your opinion. Did you ever stop to think that (as a Conservation Society board member), your opinion might be biased? Tomcue2 (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me say something. I didn't "tag" the Singer as a domestic dog, others did that as you Tom should know from the source I sent you (that's one of four sources who placed it as a domestic dog). And since we are using MSOW3 as the source for the classification, you can't say something different in the entry. Furthermore it isn't as if I like all the stuff from Matznick (to many nitpicking and obviously biased and premature) but for the articles sake I mentioned it to inform people to the best of my possibilities. It was hard to read much of that.. stuff, but I jumped over my own shadow. This is what writing articles in wikipedia is about. You can't just write what you like.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So can we conclude that ya'll disagree with my suggestion and want me to begin editing the new data?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

From my point I would say back off. You've done enough already---Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

From the point of view of my agenda, I would only ask that while you are working on this article, you also keep an eye on the articles that it links to/surround it zoologically, and make sure they all jive as much as possible. That's basically all I care about. Like right now, is this article in accord with dingo for example? Chrisrus (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrisus, Your meaning here is unclear. it sounds as though you're saying that, "as long as the article information is consistent, that's all I care about" Ok, then if that's the case you're saying the article is ok as long as it agrees with other related articles no matter whether the information contained within them is accurate or not???? So, "it's Ok to make a green ball to instruct in the useage of the word 'stop' so long as all the courses taught to 'everyone' uses the same green color even though perhaps a better choice might have been red?" Please tell me I'm wrong in my understanding of your statement. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is what he means, however, considered e.g. that he wrote "Australian lupus dingo" in the dingo-article and claimed that this was consistent with MSW3... Actually I have given up making sense of his actions.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin of NGSD

FA(Fellow editors), I think in order to write about NGSD, we have to first understand them. The first step in understanding them is to decide on the location of their origin??? Logical answer:_________(Please fill in the blank) OSM20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

FA, Then here is another question concerning origin. Considering the NGSD as NGSD are known to us today, in other words, considering the NGSD we can see, feel, smell, and hear this day today, right here, right now. Where did these animals originate? We cannot even discuss the wild population as there is no certainty at all that they even currently exist whether in a "pure" or "hybrid" form. We can only trace the origin of those specimens we can actually see, feel, hear and smell and those specimens would be the animals cloistered within the "captive population." These things said, What is their location of origin?_________________________________________osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In the words of MacIntosh, 1975, "Although the dingo is said to be regularly captured & tamed......."

So with these things in mind, I'm going to wait on you guys' input for 24 hours or so and then if you don't say anything, I'm going to do some minor editing. A person can't discuss unless there's someone to discuss with. As hyped up as this article has been, we think we should move forward on it and not just sit on our hands. I'm aging more every day! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I originally assumed that this was not controversial, that they must have gotten to New Guinea as domesticated animals we picked up in southwest or south central Asia on the way from Africa, and most directly from southeast Asia. Then some went feral (so early on, they probably hadn't gotten as far away from the original wild state as modern dogs anyway), and then, over the years slowly evolved back into wild animals. I had been assuming the same thing about the Australian version.

Now I have learned that there are some theories they they the story could have gone differently, but it sounds a bit far fetched to me. What, could they have swum there on their own? Floated there on some vegetation?

One of you said that they might have been brought not as a hunting dog but rather as a food animal, like the New Guinea variety of pig. People do eat dogs in that part of the world. I figure that was part of it, but I try to keep up with theories on the origin of the dogs, but none of them as I remember mentioned anything about dogmeat being a significant part of the domestication.

But what do I know? You're the expert. What do you think? What do the sources say? Chrisrus (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I think we're dealing with an inexact science. No one really knows what happened thousands of years ago, but there really are some good theories published and available if someone wants to prove a point. My concern is how this article will affect the thousands of readers' perceptions of the NGSD. We're down to 200 +- so things could get ugly. It's really quite heartbreaking what has been allowed to happen to these animals. Everyone editing this article needs to spend a few years with Singers and then come back and write the article. It would look totally different. Just curious Chris, have you ever seen a dog use a tool? For example, have you ever seen a dog drag a box over to a fence and then jump up on the box and then over the fence? Have you ever seen a dog that actually sympathized with you when you bumped your head? I mean really understood what had taken place? Have you ever driven along a road and looked at your buildings from the road and realized that of all the dogs by the buildings only the Singing Dogs were watching your every move? This is what we're dealing with here. These are not your normal Irish Setters or Miniature Dachshunds. These dogs are about three rungs up the ladder, but sadly, only a handful of people in the world are witnesses to it and only a few of them are published so accurate/factual sources are in short supply. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I didn't see was the head-bumping. The rest I did see. As far as your worries, just point out the features of the Singer and you will find plenty of people who want to "save" it. They are doing that with dogs all the time. And with what sport of dogs do you actually compare the Singers, it sounds as though you mean Show dogs.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B., Please be careful when you translate. It is head tossing, not head bumping. I have also read your comments regarding matznick's reference to the "head-toss". As much as I disagree with her about numerous issues, we agree that the head-toss is a feature unique to NGSD and is neat to watch too. As to your saying, "the only thing I didn't see......the rest I did see." I haven't a clue what you mean. To what statement are you responding? Please be definitive. As to pointing out features, which I assume you mean unique characteristics, then are you saying it is someone elses job to point them out to potential conservators but that it is not your responsibility or the responsibility of this article? I really think there is something being lost here in the translation. You must have misunderstood me somwhere along the line regarding "sport of dogs". Please clarify. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Mr. B., Then are you saying you have spent some time observing Singing Dogs? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"...have you ever seen a dog use a tool? For example, have you ever seen a dog drag a box over to a fence and then jump up on the box and then over the fence? Have you ever seen a dog that actually sympathized with you when you bumped your head?" That's what I saw and also other dogs that watched my every move. The last Singer I saw made short contact with me and didn't bother with me any further, nothing unusual for dogs. I simply didn't see any head-bumping. I meant "sort of dogs", sorry, typo. "...then are you saying it is someone elses job to point them out to potential conservators but that it is not your responsibility or the responsibility of this article." Correct, a wikipedia article is no advertisement board, it gives information, it doesn't say whether any being is worthy of conservation only that some people consider them so and others not if such information is available. In this case it provides information on Singers and makes no advertisement for them. And as for "just point out the features of the Singer and you will find plenty of people who want to "save" it. They are doing that with dogs all the time." What's not to understood here, in dog-breeding all sorts of dog-lines have their enthusiasts who want to "save" them. You have a conservation society or not? Advertise it from their, find people who are interested and find out whether they would be reliable breeeders. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B, Please stop using the term "head bumping" Singers do not "head bump". They "head toss." "head tossing" is behavior unique to NGSD as described by janice koler matznick. I'm not asking wiki to "advertise" NGSD. Just present verifiable facts and we'll do just fine. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You said something about head bumping: "Have you ever seen a dog that actually sympathized with you when you bumped your head". Ok, I take that on me, I confused something. And actually yeah I have seen dogs sympathizing with you. Furthermore I advise you to be also critical of your own experience. They describe the Singers you met but do actually think that you can be certain that this was true for their wild ancestors? Think of it: why a head-toss as a "call" for attention, why not a sound? Like the artcile states, it is difficult to say what is a quirk and what not because the "original state" is unknown. Oh and something else, don't use NGSD in the article. If New Guinea Singing Dog is to long for you, use "Singer" but not NGSD, even some more experienced characters might not understand that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B., I see where you're coming from on the "head toss". In the article it should be specified that the researcher specifies she only worked with and observed the "head toss" in captive Singers and it is unknown whether or not this behavior exists in wild Singers. Wait, seems like she did specify that in her article. Will need to check on it. Regarding the use of the acronym NGSD for Singing Dogs, it is only your own lack of knowledge and experience with Singing Dogs which causes you to not recognize NGSD. NGSD is widely used, accepted, and well known. We will continue to pen it. The fact that you don't admit it as a name in the first paragraph along with "Singing Dog" is your error, not ours. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Refence #6

Hi Inu, Could you help us find reference #6 and we can't read German either. Thanks very much, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't sent you the book, it has neraly 500 pages, but it was [http://www.amazon.com/Ausdrucksverhalten-beim-Hund-Dorit-Feddersen-Petersen/dp/344009863X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272724006&sr=8-1 this book].--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B. ,Etiquette demands that you provide references that are accessible to the person(s) reviewing your research. Referencing a book written in a foreign language and referencing it as a "book for sale" is not proper. You don't want to place yourself in a position of being accused of hiding or manufacturing, or misquoting sources. Thanks again, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not reference it as a "book for sale". You wanted to know the source and I showed you how it looked like. What am I supposed to do now? According to what you said any book source would be illegtimate when the reviewers cannot get the book.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, I repeat to you that the link you provided is a link to this book for sale by amazon. There are six available at a price of $65.05 each. Now if that isn't a book for sale, I don't know what is! You did not address the question re it being written in German. What you are offering here is what we'd call a hidden or covert reference. A hidden reference is one that is not accessible. This book is a hidden reference in that it is difficult to obtain and once obtained, it is in a language other than English and thus has to be translated. Once it is translated in a literal form, the meaning must be translated. This would be a fine reference in Germany where it was published, but in the U.S. where this article is being written , this reference has minimal use or meaning. It would not score very high on a list rating reference value or verifiability. Your statement of, "According to what you said any book source would be illegitimate when the reviewers cannot get the book." is a correct statement. What value is such a reference? How do we know that what you say in the article has been correctly translated, quoted and/or interpreted? Your references need to be accessible and relevant or they will be discounted in the least or deleted at the extreme. One of your obligations as a writer of non-fiction is to provide quality references. The use of this reference is hampered by being written in a foreign language and inaccessibility. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, Why don't you enter in your bibliography the page number(s) that you used and then also provide a translated copy of that/those pages?? If you were to satisfy these criteria, most of the questions regarding verifiability would be overcome. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure I can do that. But let me tell you one thing: at least I give sources for the statements I wrote. Youd don't, so stop acting like that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B., The reason I'm so picky about the need to present your references in an English translation is because we have already discovered a difference in understanding between English and German when we were discussing domestic and domesticated dogs. Also, considering that historically as well as presently there are far more Singers in the U.S. than anywhere else on earth, it would only be courteous to present information in English. Logically speaking there is a higher volume of interest as well as readers in the U.S. Then too since there are currently and have been more NGSD in the U.S. than anywhere else, Germany included, the German researchers will have been only able to draw information from a very small sample. Besides, as a reader, I'd like for wiki to at least provide a translation in English so i can fully appreciate the article. Please be specific when you give orders and belittle me. There is a difference between constructive criticism and character assassination. Please be aware of those differences before you give me orders and make small of my contributions. BTW you have still not answered my question regarding your own hands on knowledge about these animals. There is nothing wrong with not having experience in some areas. None of us have experience in all areas. It is wrong, however to hide behind a phony name and self edit as we have seen happen here(Not you). There are many aspects of writing this wiki article that exceed my capabilities. I am learning my wiki limitations but none-the-less have a desire to contribute what I am able to contribute. Please do not steal that good feeling of self worth from me by making small of my contributions. I have been asked by one editor to "back off" from you because you might leave the project. You have a lot invested in this project so it would not be logical for you to dump it and allow it to go back into others' hands. I'm being the devil's advocate with you as I would with anyone else simply to make the article as good quality as possible. There is nothing personal here what-so-ever. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But the german population has been monitored more closely than the American one concerning breeding and started with a less inbred population. Did you know about the problems some mothers have with their pups? About the barking? The problem of saying what is normal and what is a quirk? And if, which of the english sources stated this? As for me leaving, after a while even the hardiest folk give up (Chrisrus already managed that somewhere else with others), but I am not there yet. As for my experience, I'm not a researcher of Singers. I found the majority of my infos while working on the dingo article (I wanted to improve the german article which was shorter then the one on Batman Begins and I thought that this wasn't right) and I was lucky because one of the icons in dog-research over here works with them too. I am also about making the article as good as possible and regard it as a plus that I am not a fan or breeder (a co-author in the german wikipedia asked me to update the article there). And actually during all these researches I have come across many people who mean well but who did more damage than good due to their passion and stubborness and these people where practically always "fans" and breeders and often showed the typical signs of denialism. So I fought and I will do it again. Til now there has been no problem with you, you simply seem to lack information but as you noticed some people here are not open for information that contradicts there views and after a while you get tired of that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, I'm not going to argue with you or counter your insults. I would really like to blast you, but will restrain myself rather than stoop to your level. It is apparent you are being defensive and lashing out. That posture is nonproductive so I will "back off" and let you regain your composure and we will engage each other at a later time. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Mr.B, I just have to ask you one question. Why in the world would you think productive dialogue could result from an editor bragging about how so much better wikipedia is run in their home country, and hurling insults at American editors, American animals, American breeders and American researchers. We know without a glimmer of a doubt that you haven't a clue as to what has gone on in this country regarding Singing Dogs. If you feel so strongly that Americans are so bloody inferior, why don't you simply leave us to our own devices. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So now I am insulting you? Did you really expect that I would just approve of the way you edited the article? Detailed infos about the various taxonomic classifications of the Singers have nothing to do in the entry. And what were your sources for the other statements? You even destroyed a reference link. You said yourself that you have not much experience with riding articles and nonetheless you write in such a way. Why?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B, I don't edit with your "approval" in mind. You do not own the exclusive edit rights to this article. The wholesale slaughter of my efforts confirms to us that you exhibit the same behavioral deficiencies as mrhorseracer, namely some silly idea that your work is superior to other editors. This slash and dictate method didn't work for mrhorseracer and it won't work for you. Either compromise or leave. Several of us want to construct an unbiased factual article. You are interrupting this construct. Please move on to another article where your dictatorial behavior is acceptable. There are people available who possess command of the English language, subject matter knowledge, and a positive "team effort" attitude who are more than capable of producing a quality NGSD article. We admire your research and wiki rule knowledge and abilities, but those attributes are overshadowed by your lack of cooperation, nonacceptance of others' ideas and transparent lack of subject matter knowledge. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph #1

Mr. Bargho, Please cite your reference(s) and rationale for stating canis lupus hallstromi is a domestic dog. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The one above says so, also Reference # 1 said that DNA-analyses assigned it to the domestic dog, in # 5 it is assigned under C.l. dingo and that one classified as a domestic dog, # 8 does so (although you might wanna ignore that one, I would replace it if I had the original papers [I don't like using newspaper articles]), # 9 did so, # 11 also does it. And according to # 12 it's mtDNA-type fell into the main Clade of domestic dog mtDNA types.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, I'm sorry, but whenever I've used references, I've cited the page numbers so the information is readily accessible. I thought that was what was expected and required of an author. Could you go through your bibliography and make those corrections, please? Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I still have problems with the english templates, do you have experience? If yes I can give you the page numbers.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bargho, I do not feel comfortable in correcting your bibliographic information. You will need to make those corrections yourself and besides, if you were able to figure out the templates well enough to enter all that you have entered, we would think it would not be too difficult to figure out how to enter page numbers. Please clarify your own entries. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, look below for clarification.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph

Fellow Editors, The second paragraph reads "Everyone of these dogs......"There is absolutely no evidence of any kind whatsoever anywhere that indicates the remaining wild population is hybridized or in fact even exists. Therefore I'm editing those sentences. If any of you have issues with my edit, please just revert it as I'm not trying to be ornery here. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fellow Editors, After I changed the article's second paragraph I realized the information I wrote was not something that could be sourced. Is there any way for an editor to write down suggestions so other editors can read and edit it prior to saving it?? osma20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FE, How does a person write up on wikipedia the fact that there is no verified information on the current population size(either wild or captive), that there is no current verified information regarding purity that can be made public information, and that there is no current verifiable information regarding distribution. There is nothing published to support any claim of any kind except to say that the information is not available at this time. Leave the sections blank?? What to do? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If she has no peer-reviewed source for such a statement, she doesn't write it. Furthermore, what is the source for such a statement as you wrote concerning the population and breeders? And if you have one such a sentence would be better below in the section about the captive population in the entry it would be sufficient to say that the captive population is small and that there is no verified evidence for remaining Singers in the wild.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And if the wild population isn't mixed with other dogs, where did they go?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B, I agreed with you regarding verified sources as I stated in a paragraph above this one. I rewrote ans saved the only types of statements that could be used considering the lack of sources. I could not say that the population was small as the word "small" a subjective word indicating knowledge. Additionally the word small says essentially nothing. There are NGSD in private hands in the United States because NGSD seem to keep "turning up" with new information coming in every once in a while, so it's quite impossible to have a true idea re the captive population anyway. Then, of course when we have new NGSDs surface, there is first of all the question of purity that mustt be addressed. So since every statement has to sourced and wiki won't even accept organizational newsletters as sources, the truth cannot be told. Very interesting concept. As to what happened to the Singers in the wild?? You tell me. There's been no field research in N.G., so any statement along those lines is pure theory. Perhaps they died of disease, drowned in a big flood, ate a bad apple which made all the males sterile, were absorbed into the Village Dog population or were pushed farther and farther away by encroaching humman population so that the remaining NGSD only reside in remote mountain areas. There was probably a time when NGSD distribution took in the whole of N.G. Some of us believe that at one time there were two distinct Singer races. One landrace was Lowland Singers who were longer legged and thinner bodied. They were sprinters who could run fast. They are represented in the longer legged thinner bodied captive population that exists today. There were also the Lowland Singers who had shorter legs and thicker bodies. They were better adapted to mountainous terrain. As far as we know, there are only a specimens of this build in existence today but that information is not admissable in the article. osm2oOldsingerman20 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Tomcue, You could add the map link showing world distribution of captive NGSD if the map meets wiki standards. If it doesn't meet wiki standards then nothing can be said about world NGSD distribution since there is no published article about it. At least this is the way I understand the rules. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You question my sources, but again, what are yours? How do you no anything about Lowland Singers? And I rewrote the second paragraph (your wording was terrible) and I entered page numbers where the sources where to big. The only exception was "An updated description of the New Guinea Singing Dog". I used that so often, the info is spred all over the source and the article, sorry naming the pages there would be useless.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Following through on requests

Mr.B., 2nd request for page numbers in your reference list. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Mr.B., 2nd request for German-English Translation of German references used. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Mr.B., 1st request for removal of poor quality photos. The photo of the old black and tan male NGSD taken in Germany is horrible. Surely since you Germans have conducted such extensive research you have better photographs than this one. The subject is not the problem. The photographer's skills are obviously wanting. Since you're a German you should be able to procure better quality photos that don't present the animal in a negative manner. A second photo of poor descriptive quality is the very first one in the article. The photo you used is of an older dog. There is nothing wrong with using photos of old dogs, but in this case, the tail is held down and viewers can't see the white tip on its tail. White tipped tails are a major characteristic of NGSD and should be shown. The 3rd photo that needs to be replaced is the one taken at the San Diego Zoo (BTW Sand Diego is not correct spelling as used in the article). There are many, many quality photos of the San Diego Zoo Singing Dogs. Both of the dogs housed there are good natured, not confrontational as your photo suggests. In fact, NGSD are never,have never, not even once, been known to confront humans and will only defend themselves when cornered and there is no visible escape. Why show readers a photo which suggests that these dogs are aggressive or mean?? I'm trying to look at this article as a reader would look at it. These are my first impressions of the photos. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I already did add page numbers. WHat use is the page number if the source is just 4 pages long or when practically the whole source is spread all over ther article? And what sort of translation of the german sources would actually stand as reliable for you? Didn't you complain about the language barrier, how would that be different? What shall I do? Go to the Zoo, climb into the enclosure and take pictures of the dog? I could get in trouble with the zoo staff for that. By the way which of the photos show the dogs as confrontational? What signs of aggression are there? Tom and me are already working on new photos. By the way, aren't you a breeder? Why don't you make some photos?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B. Sorry, We just can't find your page numbers. I was especially interested in Laurie Corbitts Canid. The page numbers just don't show up on my computer in your reference list or in your text. I must be overlooking them. That's quite a yarn you spun regarding the German-English translation. I know you'll never let us see it but that's OK. We will simply disregard your source. I think you can find the San Diego Zoo picture about which I'm referring all by yourself without any further help from me. To answer your question about my Wife and I providing you with pictures, we have 26 photos in the photo section of the New Guinea Singing Dog International website. They are of our NGSD and represent a fair share of the New Guinea Singing Dog Foundation Stock for North America. I will explain the significance of Foundation Stock to you some other time. We do applaud you for a fine array of photos. Pictures are great communicators if carefully chosen! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have pictures then upload them. And one thing: YOU DARE TO COMPLAIN THAT YOU CAN'T FIND THE PAGE NUMBERS? According to this history-version of the article you deleted them!!! Fine I can translate the source if you threaten me. But still I don't get what difference that should make.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B. You're still not understanding what I said about page numbers. Page numbers should be in your reference list. How else can I say it? We have not touched your reference list. You have never entered the page numbers in your list of references. A person should be able to go to your reference list and see the pages you used. If you provide a translated copy of your foreign references that would be splendid. Providing translated references will allow editors other than yourself the opportunity to clarify and verify. We know there are language issues as written in the section under Physical description. Just for an example of incorrect useage, you use the word "spots" when describing the coats of newborns. The author whom you referenced used the word "flecks". In the English language, there is a significant difference between "spots" and "flecks". When I read your word "spots" I immediately thought of Dalmatians. Dalmations have "spots". Flecks are technically tiny, tiny spots, but to say a newborn Singer has "spots" is incorrect.. Newborn Singers are not spotted. Their haircoat has "flecks". You used the wrong word. Why didn't you simply use matznick's word "flecks"? Little words make a big difference in meaning. You say "At age 7 years the black snouts turn gray." Matznick says, " By 7 years the black muzzle turns gray." With your version it reads that their snouts turn gray instantly the day they turn 7 years of age. Matznick's version tells us that their muzzles gradually turn gray starting before 7 years of age. Additionally, your use of the word "snouts" is incorrect. Pigs or hogs have "snouts". Dogs have "muzzles". This all may sound picky to you, but when one adds up all these minor errors one ends up with some major misunderstandings. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's it, I'm done with you I wont do anything you suggest anymore. You claim not to have touched the references but the article history says otherwise. You make a huge deal about certain topics and claim to know what the average reader will think. How many have you actually asked? Well I asked quite a few and none of them had any problems with the article or the text. You either don't know what you are doing or you knowledgeably vandalize.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu, Fine. Be done with me, but don't complain when your work is considered dumb just because you misinterpreted things. You should thank me for being kind to you and helping to clean up your edits. . Instead of harping on what I did to your reference, why don't you simply edit back in the reference that you used. I did not take away from your content. I sued the same reference you used. All I did was interpret it correctly because I have a better understanding of the English language than you have. There is nothing bad about that. I can't speak any other language at all. Why do you get so upset when someone corrects the littlest part of your work. You cannot be educated or can't have obtained a higher degree because you would have learned a tiny bit of humility. Be a little humble! Chill out! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Inu, Almost forgot. You threatened me saying you won't do anything I suggest anymore. I don't consider that a big loss as you haven't done anything I've suggested to date anyway. And BTW the word you need is "knowingly" vandalize, not "knowledgeably" vandalize. Actually, I don't do either.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Differences In Meanings of Terms

Mr.B. Terms such as "breed", "breed of dog", "domestic dog", have different meanings when used by the general public as compared to when used by the scientific world. If you plan to use these terms, you will need to define them. Correct English language useage is a problem in your writing so we suggest you provide "a glossary of terms". In the "Glossary of Terms" you can define words you use that have multiple meanings or interpretations. It would also serve to clarify language deficiencies. In your very first opening sentence(which is actually two sentences run together)you use the term "domestic dog". Clicking on the term "domestic dog" simply brings up a reference to Mammal Species of the World 3rd Ed. that is meaningless to the "common Joe reader". After reading the information the reader goes back to the article knowing no more than they did a moment ago. In fact, they probably now think the NGSD is the same as a Boxer, Great Dane, or Shih Tzu since there is no clarification such as the use of the words "modern" or "ancient". I would think a dog that has survived for several thousand years deserves clarification. When readers see the words "domestic dog" they think of the modern dogs, not ancient ones. When you use confusing terms or words that have multiple meaning you need to reference them to a "Glossary Of Terms". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

At first: the little article you mentioned was Chrisrus Idea not mine. Second: have some patience, I already found a new source on dog genetics that includes Singers and adresses this. Third: did it occur to you that the article on domestic dog is simply bad? A glossary of terms is good for a book but not for one of these articles here, every good wikipedian would tell you the same. Fourth: Maybe I would find time to adress this topic if you would just stop with this for some time.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. B. I think you misunderstood me. What little article are we discussing? I can surely agree that a full blown glossary would be out of place, but I would think it would be better to make a stab at explaining a handful of terms rather than leaving the reader confused or even misinformed. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Then edit the articles about these terms. Edit dog breed, edit domestic dog, edit domestication and so on. But I can guarantee you one thing if you do with those articles the same what you did with this one, you wont get many friends.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B, We really don't understand what you're saying here. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand....

The New Guinea Singing dog is a variety of Domestic dog of the subspecies Canis lupus dingo.

Although, like familiar common dogs, ’’Canis lupus familiaris’’, they are descended from domesticated wolves , they, like the Australian Dingo, so long ago went feral that have reverted to a wild state.

Separation from other bloodlines and pressure to adapt to life in the highlands of New Guinea resulted in a unique set of physical characteristics and behaviors that distinguish them from all other dogs.

Although several captive populations exist in various locations around the world, this genetic isolation may have ended in their home range; interbreeding with feral dogs may have already resulted in the disappearance of New Guinea Singing Dogs in the wild. (Chrisrus)

Based upon the information I have studied and read, your comments are pretty accurate. Two things to add however. 1) Because the island of New Guinea is still so sparsely populated and the NGSD has tended to stay away from human contact, the possibility exists that wild purebred NGSD's may still live in the PNG highlands. 2) The 2010 dna results by Alan Wilton and Peter Savolanien have concluded that the Singer & Australian Dingo's dna are virtually the same. This leads to the theory that the two dogs may have at one time actually looked the same but that the end of the ice age (which seperated New Guinea & Australia)by the Coral Sea left them isolated from each other in very different environments. This could then explain the minor physical differences between the Dingo and the NGSD. Tomcue2 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

While 1) might be an important elaboration suitable for something other than a brief summary, I don't see that it contradicts or corrects the statement "...may have ended" and "...may have resulted". Wheneveer one says "may" one implies "or may not".

2) on the other hand, seems to support the statement "of the subspecies Canis lupus dingo, because if their DNA were not virtually the same, the NGSD and the Australian Dingo wouldn't be Canis lupus dingo".

Your third unumbered statement seems to support my "Separation....all other dogs." Chrisrus (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Where are those DNA results published? Furthermore I recommend not to use "familiar common" for dogs since this is a valuation and has nothing to do here, simply link c.l. familiaris. Furthermore since all the studied Singers are descended from captive individuals and the majority came from the Eipo tribe the "wild state" is debatable until wild Singers have been caught and studied. And neither it is sure whether they developed all of their characteristics in New Guinea.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are so funny. You think you can decide something that world class scientists argue over. Trust me, you're spinning your wheels with all this taxon stuff. If you words like "may" you're being subjective. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Chrisrus, As I've said before, there is no way anyone can reach back in time and determine with any certainty that either NGSD or AU Dingoes were feral. Anyone who states these dogs were domesticated and then went feral is simply writing a good fictional story. I do not understand why you all persist to trying to write controversial fantasy. Inu, A link to a news article of the 2010 DNA study is in the links section. The main article hasn't nbeen published to date as far as we know. All this is available are about 90 newspaper articles. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Chrisrus, We really like your paragraph after "Separation" with the exception of the bit about the highlands. There is no proof that NGSD have been limited to just the highlands. They may have roamed all over as I've mentioned before, but everyone seems determined to limit them to the highlands so that's OK. The first sentence is improper. The first sentence should read, "The New Guinea Singing Dog aka Singing Dog or Singer is a rare, ancient breed or race of canine which as developed simultaneously but separated from its close relative the Australian Dingo." osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept the assertion about the highlands thing being controversial and will take it into account on my next try, below.

I accept that the word "may" is not enough. I will take that into account below.

I disagree with the critique about "common familiar dogs". "Domestic Dog" is what MSW3 calls the clade, and "dogs" makes it sound as if NGSDs weren't one of them. Canis lupus familiaris is too technical to stand alone, and neither the word "common" nor "familiar" has any positive or negative connotations in this context and quickly and accurately point the reader to the proper referent.

Ok, how's this:

The New Guinea Singing dog is a variety of Domestic dog of the subspecies Canis lupus dingo. Like common familiar dogs, ’’Canis lupus familiaris’’, they are a descended from domesticated wolves. Like the Australian Dingo, they are more wild than the typical modern domesticated animal. There has been no clear evidence of their continued existence in the Highlands of New Guinea where they were originally found in many years. A small population of captive individuals exist in various places around the world.

Is there now any controvertial statement here? Chrisrus (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New Lead

Stop talking about that stuff and help me here. Doing something productive about the article will make everyone feel better, and I need your help to do this properly. First, thanks to everyone who has been helping me get this thing straight and write the following, which I am suggesting as a new lead. But before you begin, please everyone remember not to get off topic. If anyone gets off topic I'll cut it out and paste it to a new section. Here we must STAY ON TASK! Now here's what we've got so far: Chrisrus (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Guinea Singing Dog is a rare variety of Domestic dog. Scientifically speaking, it is classified not with the familiar common dogs, Canis lupus familiaris, but rather grouped together with the Australian Dingo and primitive dogs of southeastern Asia into the subspecies Canis lupus dingo.

Its name refers to its distinctive vocalization and the highlands of New Guinea where it was found in 1957. At first, the unique features of "Singers", as they are often called, convinced many that they were a new species or subspecies of canid, and so they were mostly kept in zoos. Today, Singers have not been found in New Guinea in many years, but small populations of Singers are cared for and bred in several locations around the world, and they have been recognized the United Kennel Club as a distinct breed of dog belonging to the Sighthound & Pariah Group.

References

1. http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751
2. http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/NewGuineaSingingDog
3. http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/actionplans/canids.pdf (Page #20)

How's that so far? Anyone disagree? Be specific now, and give reasons. I'm all ears...Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Digression: Inugami-gargho quits

You could be so good if you would just stick to the facts. Oh well, take this one, only one thing though: I am leaving. You and Osm20 won. This will never stop So I will leave the Singer and Dingo-article.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Digression

Inu - please keep in mind that we are in the discussion page and not the article itself. If you feel the need to ask for references in the discussion page it seems a huge waste of space. Just so you know where I am coming from at this point, I saw your post to a fellow wiki editor "Mariomassone" where you labeled me as a breeder. I am not a breeder and do not appreciate being labeled as one so that you can discredit my input. I am the co-founder of an organization trying to conserve the NGSD. That is far more than just a breeder. Regarding my information I provide here, you should probably know that at some time in the near future I will be laying out $25,000 of my own American hard earned cash to fund an expedition to the PNG highlands in search of new NGSD bloodlines. Before I made the decision to do this I needed to be confident of two things. 1) That non hybridized NGSD's still exist in the Highlands of PNG & 2) That if captured, someone can dna test what we catch and be able to determine that it's a pure NGSD or a hybrid. Alan wilton himself told us that the dna markers of Dingo's and Singers are unique enough that he can differentiate them from being pure or hybrid. He stated that he could only tell us if a Au Dingo or singer have been hybridized with another dog breed. He further stated that the only mix he could not be certain of was a AU Dingo crossed with a Singer. That sounds like pretty strong evidence that the dna of the two dingo's are the same. Don't know if it's referenced somewhere and really don't care if it hits the article. If you want to be on the cutting edge feel free to place it on the page. I doubt anyone will challenge it. It's important to me however and someday it will be in print somewhere for you to use. Tomcue2 (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there rational reason to expect that there are still pure wild NGSDs in their home range? Chrisrus (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. The island has areas that are so remote (void of human population) and so difficult to traverse, there is a strong possibility that pure bred Singers still thrive there. The problem is getting to them to capture one. The terrain is extremely difficult to explore. Helecopters are needed to get an explorer to these remote areas. Tomcue2 (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Who might publish your findings? Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that we successfully capture a pure Singer, there is no doubt that it will be published somewhere. We will attempt to get photo and video footage and will likely seek some assistance from Conservation International who is already on the island and studying the birds of paradise in the highlands.Tomcue2 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Tomcue, Please allow me to add a bit here. What Dr. Wilton told me was that Au Dingo and NGSD markers differ significantly from those found in domestic breeds of dogs. Plain and simple. AU Dingo and NGSD are almost identical with one another and they are unique from domestic dogs. As tomcue says, Dr. Wilton said the differences between Au Dingoes and Singers compared to domestic dogs is very apparent. With this new study completed, it is so easy to prove that NGSD are not to be considered a domestic dog. There were no ifs, ands, or buts about it and I'm sorry Inu there's no way we're going to entertain ideas to the contrary. For you to try to elevate yourself above Dr. Wilton and 30 some other researchers from several prestigious universities is rather a joke. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So Wilton told you? Strange a few months back he told be that the dingo is an ancient breed. And if it is as you say, why doesn't it stand in the study "Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication", if that is the one you are referring too?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

inu, Yes, as a matter of fact he did. Why do you find that so hard to believe? Do you always go out of your way to insult people and call them liars? We can certainly go along with the idea that the NGSD and AU Dingo are ancient breeds of canine because in the correct context, the word "breed" is not used with the words, "domestic dog". Dr. Wilton's team is very specific when they say there are significant differences between the DNA of AU Dingoes/NGSD and the DNA of domestic dogs. Used properly, the word "breed" stands for "a group whose members are alike or the same". "Race is a synonym for "breed". So a person could say: "New Guinea Singing Dogs aka Singing Dogs or Singers" are a rare ancient breed or race of canine. NGSD have lived on the island of New Guinea for thousands of years. According to a 2010 DNA study by Dr. Alan Wilton etal, the Australian Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dogs are closely related."(cite Wilton reference here) Inu, Now how will you find fault with this one? What are your feelings here tomcue and chrisrus? Oh and BTW belittling breeders simply shows ignorance and arrogance. It's so funny that some of you think you're on a level above a "breeder". You wouldn't have a job, anything to occupy your time, or any dogs to argue over if it weren't for us "breeders". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu - So what did you take it to mean when Wilton told you that the dingo was an ancient breed? You don't need dna to figure that out. Simply looking at the physical characteristics can bring one to that conclusion. You did once mention that you believed that the domestic dog evolved from wolf, did you not? Maybe you should go back and ask Wilton directly if he can differenciate between a canis lupis familiarus and a canis lupus dingo via DNA? We obviously had a reason to ask this question where the subject might not be as important to the Wiki page or to his findings. Quit doubting everything we are telling you about the NGSD. Either find the stones to use it or keep it out of the page. It matters not to me and I do not plan on editing the page myself. We have nothing to gain by providing you this information other than to educate folks. Tomcue2 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning Wiltons findings but I question your interpretations of it. And exactly since you are breeders doesn't mean that you are right, quite the contrary it is very likely that a breeder is biased because he is so passionate about it. I have come accross breeders who defended the worst deformities on their animals and also scientist who used a language that made it very doubtful how objective they were, this is why I am always sceptical. Nearly everytime when I came in contact with breeders of dingoes or read their statements they all just stated that they are different but didn't go further and gave no answers when asked, respectively came with the same stuff that also other domestic dogs have. It seems that they don't want them to be domestic dogs because being a domestic dog seems to make them less special in the eyes of those people. Sure dingoes can be identified via DNA, so what? Alsations can be identified via DNA, Huskies can be, I can be identified via DNA. That doesn't mean that they are something different on a subspecies level, the classification as a seperate subspecies was done longe before DNA-analyses found the identifying markers. And if the differences would be so big why did it take so long to find markers to identify them? And even there is no certainty because they took DNA from postcolonial dingoes. If they are something different then why are their DNA markers found among the domestic dog types? Even the current study you two cite doesn't state anything that would justify to say that they are something different than a domestic dog. Quite the contrary it lists both in the same group as Shar Peis, Chow chows and Akitas. How is that in accordance with your statements?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

tomcue, I think I'm wasting my time arguing with Mr. Bargho. He has no respect for other opinions whatsoever, at all. To quote using his double adverbs: He mostly simply does his darnest to make anyone who opposes his opinions look bad. The article is less than "good". It conveys an inaccurate and biased message regarding NGSD both in the text and in the photos, but you know, the world has many fools in it and it appears that some of them aspire to be wikipedia editors who write up articles on all sorts of subjects yet have absolutely no actual experience with the subject at all and worse, they don't want anyone around who does. They aren't smart enough to accept expert advice. To me, that is beyond ignorant! In the NGSD case, Inu is actually using my NGSD experience against me because he says it makes me biased. Good land, what a ridiculous statement! I've noticed that one of his defenses for his past articles is that "the article has been reviewed in the German wikipedia and no one complained." If we'd go back into his edit history, I'll bet we'd also find other interesting facts. It appears that editors such as Inu exist in order to "own" articles no matter what the subject and then control the content. Exercising this kind of control is gratifying to them. Mrhorseracer was the same way. A big time need to control. Something is desperately wrong with this scenario. We think your last comments have been very well written and thought out and we thank you for your support. Interestingly enough, I have spent many, many hours on this wiki article and have accomplished only minor changes. The photos remain the same, the text pretty much remains the same. When mrhorseracer ruined her/their credibility and we ushered in this new article, we were afraid we'd possibly made a grave error. I think the error was that when mrhorseracer got booted, we should have told Inu to wait and we'd write an whole new NGSD article. We shouldn't have allowed him to insert his and take it over. It looks to us like Inu has had excellent experience at wearing out other editors with his aggressive argumentative style so that now, instead of making constructive changes in the article, changes suggested by others such as entering page numbers in the reference section, providing translated references for review, having someone with a good command of the English language come in and edit his work, or take any advice or guidance from others, he wants to simple turn away any criticism(in this case the word criticism is used in a constructive way, not negative). In a way, it's really too bad, because if a person can get past his language barrier and biases, one can see that he is a good researcher and his research skills could be used to advantage when writing an article. I think it is interesting that he has never mentioned the removal of the taxonbox. Inu's plan, of course, is obvious. Since he can't out argue me, he will next try to discredit me and then he will try to get someone else in on his side to fight me. My only hope is that there are other editors out there who see what is happening here. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My God, this is getting tedious. I'm not going to name names, but for the moment, all I can advise is this: :The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia does not attempt to determine truth, but to accurately reflect the positions of relevant reliable sources. So if reliable sources describing the NGSD take it as being a synonym of the dingo etc. as a given, then so does the article. Wikipedia's three content policies (WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:OR) explain this concept in more detail.Mariomassone (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Marionmassone, Thank you for intervening. Yes, it's too tedious. My blood pressure is topping out. For my part I will study your suggestions. Could you tell us please what to do about an editor who refuses to include page numbers in his reference list? What is there to do about an editor who uses a foreign references not translated to English so that the source can't be verified? Last question. You say verifiability yes, but what if all the verifiable info is pointed out but the editor still refuses to use the reference because he doesn't "trust" the researcher or just doesn't agree with the research reslits? To us, these are vexing questions and we would really appreciate an accurate answer. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my two cents:

A) If page numbers are required, then bloody well add them. If this article was a college thesis, it would fail precisely for not adding such details. If a certain editor refuses to do it, then find someone with the same material who will

B) Wikipedia is global in its policy. If there are two works on the same topic in different languages, then the language of the wiki should take precedence. IF however the foreign language one has information not found in English publications, then it is worth adding. Either that, or find another native speaker to verify the info

C) I don't even know what to say about point three. As I stated earlier, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If certain editors dispute the claims made, then they should publish their criticisms in a peer reviewed journal. If not, then the issue should stay here in the discussion page

Although I find canids fascinating, I can't say I find this particular variety overly interesting, and I don't see myself coming back here anytime soon other than to have a laugh at the drama this obscure dog is causing. I hope the points I made helped in calming the dispute. The rest is up to you people. Mariomassone (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Marionmasssone, We are seriously shocked at the comments you have shared with us. This may be out of order, but there's no two ways about it, you are a rude and arrogant person. It's obvious that helping out here was a grave imposition on your valuable time and you resent wasting your valuable time on something so trivial as a canine that is nearly extinct. Are you for real??? Reading your remarks about New Guinea Singing Dogs gives wikipedia editors a bad name and for good reason. My wife and I have spent 23 years preserving these dogs, several others have also spent many years of their lives trying to keep these dogs from going extinct and for you to come on in this discussion making these kinds of comments not only shows a profound degree of ignorance, but also a deep rooted lack of decency. It is also quite apparent that you don't give a hoot about living things. If wikipedia applauds the kind of advice and animal assassination you have just penned, we believe some changes in wiki policy are in order. An apology is a bare minumum for these kinds of remarks!!!! "Obscure", yes. They'll be more obscure if people read your comments and take them to heart. We cannot believe anyone who is giving advice would be so callous and uncaring. My land, where does wikipedia find people like you? No one asked you how you "feel" about NGSD. You graciously volunteered that personal, subjectively cruel information all on your own.. You need a few lessons in common courtesy and wildlife appreciation. A complaint with wikipedia administration about your comments is in order for this kind of tomfoolery. "Helped in calming the dispute"?? Yes sir, making small of people who care about their subject is certainly the way to calm a dispute. osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I do apologise if I have personally offended you. If in my hasty remarks I gave the impression that I am apathetic toward the fate of the NGSD, then let me assure you that that is not the case. Truth be told however that in reading this dispute, the valuable information on this canine which I could have learned and grown to be interested in was (to put it at its mildest) overwhelmed by the in-fighting going on here.

I do not know if my ignorance on the topic was what made certain editors feel that I could somehow act as the voice of impartiality in settling this dispute, but the fact of the matter is, if I wanted to become aquainted with the NGSD, I would have done so in my own time. I suppose that because I was heavily involved in the revision of the Eurasian Wolf and golden jackal articles (which are far from perfect at the moment), this has given the false impression that I am available to edit all canine articles. The fact of the matter is (at the risk of sounding romanticist), is that I only contribute to articles on topics which give me inspiration. If I can be so bold, I think I can speak for everyone when I say that being introduced to a new animal through the infighting of its proponents is hardly an ideal way of making it more appealing to laypeople.

In closing, all I can say is this; from what I have read, there was a time when you all were cooperating in improving this article. As the impartial voice which I assume certain editors wanted me to be, all I can say is that there was obviously something which once united you in making this article better. Why not try and focus on finding that thing again?

Again, apologies for the misunderstanding. Mariomassone (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Marionmassone, oldsingerman accepts your apology. What you said was pretty hard for an old man to swallow. The fact that you came back on immediately, interrupting a busy schedule, and offered a sincere apology speaks well of you. What you did in apologizing shows maturity and a sense of caring toward other editors and just people in general. It's really, seriously great to see that ther are editors who are "human". I would also like to compliment you on your commitment of contributing to articles on topics that give you inspiration. In the case of the Singing Dog, those of us who are inspired by this animal are condemned by one of the editors for being "passionate" about Singers and are informed that editors who are "passionate" about a subject are unable to write an objective article or contribute in a meaningful way because they are biased towards the animal. We, of course find that very frustrating because we are being told we cannot effectively write about what we love most and have the most knowledge about. What is actually happening here is that the editor about whom I speak is unbending, feels his article is above criticism and won't accept any sort of suggestions. It's a most difficult situation. I have reviewed Chrisrus and Tomcue2 as far as their comments in discussions are concerned and feel strongly that neither of them enjoy infighting. The three of us came here to write an accurate article about NGSD and we simply cannot do it. The fourth author won't let us. It is extremely frustrating and I have no idea how to relieve the situation so we may proceed in a productive manner. We have appealed to the fourth editor time and time again to ease up and let us contribute, but are blocked by argumentative retorts every time we attempt change. I just don't know what to do(throwing my hands up in the air). osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that your response was a great weight off my mind. I too sometimes feel opressed by the seeming machine-like attitude taken by some editors here. I fear that in my wish to conform (in this case especially), I may have imitated them too closely.

I am very pleased to have made your (organisation's?) aquaintance. I fear, however, that I simply am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to make any meaningful contributions to the article or the debate, and it appalls me that I lost my temper in trying to keep track of it.

In order to avoid such embarassing incidences in future, I think I should make a general statement on my userpage that I am not "up for grabs" in canid debates.

Thank you again for your civility Mariomassone (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)