Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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


I fully resent the picture that is being published in the history section!!

1. This dog is NOT a good representative of the breed!! His legs are WAY too short for what we want to see in a real Shiloh ... Just go to our homepage & take a look at the pic of Laz .. then compare!!!

If that is not enough .. go to Look at Shiloh's Easy rider (Shane) he is in every Shiloh born today!! This is the most prominent foundation dog in our genepool ... if you want HISTORY ... then this is the dog who's picture should be there ... not a faulty dog that represents a "non" ISSR breeding!!

That dog actually represents a Low stationed (Alsatian) FAULTY type

2. At this moment you have a pet quality ISSR Shiloh (that has never been bred, but is a good representative of the breed) pictured along with 2 NONE ISSR dogs that will never show up in the database, once the breed IS recognized!!

Why not upload this picture to wikipedia with an acceptible license, and it could be used on the page? - Trysha (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we please drop the "only ISSR Shilohs are Shilohs" bull? My Rottie has a roach back -- are you going to tell me she's not a Rottie? She might not agree ;) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a gross misrepresentation of our dogs & an injustice to the entire breed! MaShiloh 18:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And you certainly had the room to add other representatives, however, I see no reason the top ranked Shiloh, judged by your breed standard which you allow ARBA to use should be considered a "gross misrepresentation". .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC) I would like to add my disapproval of the picture that is being published in the proposed "history" section. This does not look like the real Shiloh Shepherds. There are so many good and accurate pictures available of real Shiloh Shepherds that you may use to show a true representation of the Shiloh Shepherds. I can't understand why you have selected the particular picture you are showing there now. Please reconsider and contact Tina Barber, the documented founder and the legitimate guiding developer for good, true and accurate pictures of SHILOH SHEPHERDS. Tisci, ISSR TiAmo Desert Mountain Shiloh Shepherds in AZ.

I'm sorry, but Tina isn't the only one who can put pictures in the article, Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Nancy is objecting to someone else posting a picture of a Shiloh Shepherd. She is objecting to the use of a picture that is a poor representation of a Shiloh.


I also see this as a very BAD dog to represent the breed standard. Please remove it. 16:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

I asked Karen to put a few pics of "old line" Shilohs on a page for me These dogs are good representatives of this breed ... and NOT BEING USED AT STUD!!!! For those woried about POV etc... why not put up pictures of dogs that are NOT producing puppies in ANY registry, but DO show up in the pedigrees of NEARLY EVERY SHILOH EVER BORN? MaShiloh 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a dog is used as stud has absolutely nothing to do with their picture; please try to focus on the article content. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The top ranked ARBA dog, son of two ISSR stars is a bad representative? *shakes head* Get off the soapbox folks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but who are the stated parents of this dog? The breeder left the ISSR in 1998 and all ties to the ISSR were severed at that time. How can the parents be ISSR stars?

On another note, if that picture is to remain in this article, I would ask that the self promoting commentary included on the picture page be removed. The other pictures included do not promote any particular group, but simply provide an example of coat/color. SandraSS 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The "self-promoting" commentary promotes the dogs accomplishments, not any registry or club. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the pic of Adam

I can assure you that if you look at his pedigree, he DOES have AKC dogs in it. You think that the AKC would give him GSD papers now?? What about the GSDCA using THAT picture as a *perfect* example of a GSD???

You think THAT'S funny?? Well how should WE feel when we are forced (by the Wiki) to look at THIS!!!

Even if he has *some* ISSR dogs in his pedigree ... the analogy should be the SAME ... he is no more an ISSR "Shiloh Shepherd" then Adam is an AKC GSD! 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

What does being registered with the ISSR have to do with anything? How is that relevant to the picture at all? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The pictures in the article look really nice. The dog that is being disparged has been proven under the standard used by all and sent to ARBA by the breed founder. Wikipedia continues to do a great job at neutrality, and unbiased representation of shilohs that have proven themselves a good example to the breed standard. The puppies are adorable. Great to see Wikipedia continue to set the standard for "equality of all, representation" to all sides, equally as passionate to this breed standard. iamgateway 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Iamgateway, would you please answer this one question seriously: who is the breed founder? I don't mean to pick on you or anything, I just want an honest answer from you. I'm sure whomever owns this dog loves him and feels proud of him. The owner probably thinks he is the most beautiful dog in the world. I feel the same way about my dogs. Unfortunately, this particular dog is not a representative for the *ideal* Shiloh Shepherd. If you look at the breed standard, you will realize the dog is low stationed. This is considered a flaw in a Shiloh Shepherd.

Find me a dog that every judge thinks has perfect conformation and then this argument might have weight. Obviously many judges felt he was an outstanding representative of the breed standard; he earned three times the show points of any other dog showing in ARBA. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, perhaps the picture doesn't do Harley justice. Have any of the people who are criticizing the dog actually seen him? I haven't, but he got 18,025 points in ARBA shows, and the next dog got 5795 points. For that many independent judges to put him up that many times, using the Shiloh standard, indicates that his conformation is exceptional, at least in the eyes of those judges. Regards S Scott 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott
Actually there are many better pictures of him but we chose not to use them as they were pictures filled with judges, rosettes, trophies, show placards, etc. It is very easy to be an arm chair quarterback and state there are better dogs. Maybe there are, so why not quit complaining and bring them to the shows and let the best dog win? In the meantime in less than two years this dog has 42 BIS, 15 Reserve BIS, 73 group 1 and 93 Best of Breeds under three different organizations. He is a 2x GV, an ARBA Master Champion, a Rarities Grand Champion and International Champion. In 2004 he was ARBA's # 3 dog, 2005 ARBA's # 1 dog. So far this year he is Rarities #2 dog [1]
He has been shown from East coast to West Coast, and has been judged by AKC, FCI,UKC and other foreign judges.If anyone feels all these organizations and their judges don't have the intelligence to understand a breed standard, then by all means let them know.
As for all of the negative comments, I consider the source. Many of us could fault the gray sable dog in the article also, but we have way too much class for that. Before anyone yells that dog is a pet, we all know he was shown and attempted to reproduce.ShenandoahShilohs 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There ARE dogs that are closer to the *ideal* than the one in the picture. In breed standards, there are minor faults and major faults. Apparently, ARBA's interpretation of the breed standard must be the final word in all rare breeds, although there have been cases of an organization misinterpreting, mistaking, and/or changing breed standards, sometimes under political pressure. Case in point, look at the American version of the GSD.

We cannot speculate on ARBAs interpretation or "political pressure". There are other pictures in the article which should help give the full range. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for speculations, merely pointing out that such organizations are not infallible. History has proven that time and time again. I'm sure ShenandoahShilohs could provide a better picture of him or of another dog (this person does agree it is not this dog's best picture). On another note, I did not know that there were international competetitions for Shiloh Shepherds! That is really cool. :) What contries are the dogs competing in such events from?

I can answer that question for you. Two-the US and Canada. Wow, what an amazing international show! International champion must be such a conveted position for a Shiloh Shepherd! If people do not bother doing proper research, they deserve to be duped into spending thousands on some Shiloh mutt. I did research, and the conclusion I reached was that the only legitimate registry is the ISSR.
Do not worry so much about articles read on Wikipedia. In college, it is not allowed as a source in *any* assignment due to many factual errors. Didn't you hear about Israeli prime ministier Ariel Sharon? According to Wiki, he made a trip to hell. The article has now been edited, but it shows how reliable the information on Wikipedia is.

With all due respect, I do not address individuals on this particular site, in first person form. This is not the forum for personal dialogue. But for the record, the dog's owner did not place the dog in the top ARBA position, an unbiased organization, with multiple unbiased judges, that have all studied the breed standard written by Tina Barber, ARBA did this in arenas all around the US. All registries recognize and respect ARBA, as stated already. The owner of this particular shiloh is a humble peacable person that loves him for the family pet that he is. He has never been used at stud, he is a spoiled house dog, like most of the shilohs are and should be. All dogs shown in public can be called up with faults as there is no perfect dog out there, but it should, respectfully, not be done by amatures or by people with biased agendas. Claims of self promotion of dogs due to exposure can be jealously conjured up anywhere public exposure is given. But that too, is not productive nor progressive for this purpose. But I digress into objective opinions and "chat" that has nothing to do with article concensus, and I truly don't like to "chat". Wikipedia is not a forum for debate of personal opinions. This is a forum for literary writing for concensus done by editors. Please address your purpose towards the article and please do not address me personally, again. I am not interested in "idle chat". Thank-you. iamgateway 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"All dogs shown in public can be called up with faults as there is no perfect dog out there, but it should, respectfully, not be done by amatures or by people with biased agendas." Does that mean someone *cough, iamgateway, cough* that is rude to a person posting a valid statement because said statement is inconvenient?

As has been stated to other editors, with all due respect, I do not address individuals on this particular site, in first person form. This is not the forum for personal dialogue. There are many other arenas that personal converstations are appropriate. Please address any personal questions on those forums. When submitting article suggestions/improvements/edits, I would ask that editors not address me directly while trying to submit pieces for concensus. I will assume that all editors participating on this forum are working towards the goal of completing the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article. Responses by me are not meant to be rude, they are meant to follow Wikipedia rules as an editor. You can find these rules and suggestions within your user name discussion page. There is a welcome message that outlines these rules and helpful hints. It may be helpful if editors review them. Please address your submission to the article in a direct manner rather than engage in a conversation with myself or other editors. Thank-you. iamgateway 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"The dog that is being disparged has been proven under the standard used by all and sent to ARBA by the breed founder." That's why I asked. I wondered if there might be some general confusion as to factual information among readers. It has nothing to do with "idle chat" or anyone in particular. Like I said, I really did not mean to pick on anyone, but wanted to clear up what might have been confusion or a misunderstanding. Wow, what hostility.


For the record, Harley’s sire is ‘Shenandoah’s the Phantom v Zion’ out of JNK’s Smokin Black Bear of Zion and Crane’s Our-Tribute-To-Contessa, and his dam is ‘Shenandoah’s Spirit of Tazzy’ out of Shenandoah’s The Taz of Zion and JNK’s Foxy Roxy Lady. “All” the dogs in his pedigree originated from exclusively ISSR Shiloh Shepherd stock – not just ‘some’ dogs, as has been alluded. Harley's pedigree is as much “Shiloh” as Adam’s is. His pedigree and ARBA show record justify the inclusion of his photo within the article. Shiloh Supporter

It should be further noted that "Shenandoah's The Taz of Zion" and Adam's dam "Zion's Raven Out of the Mist" are full-siblings. Dartagnan 14:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we got a lot of new pictures overnight :) Now if we just had some motion we might have the entire spectrum covered. Unfortunately it also cluttered up the article quite a bit, so I've put a gallery in to give us more room. As we keep expanding the article, we should get lots more space for pictures :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can give me time to ask Tina, I believe there is a picture of Meg in motion. She is a wonderful Shiloh girl that has the "perfect" flying trot! SandraSS 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Since it appears the history discussion is winding down and we've had a couple of questions about the health section and other areas, I figured it was time to bring this up again. We need to cite our sources for the information included in the article. For some things (like the history), we already have the link under External links to the breed club/registry site where we got the information for the history so we wouldn't need to include that twice -- same probably goes with the appearance and temperment; I believe that information is listed in the breed standard which is linked.

Since it was requested that the link to the GTF site which reproduces the health survey be removed, we need to either find another source for the common health issues, replace that link (putting it in a References section) or remove the statements from the article. Also, the opening paragraph (which really could use some work) states "the Giant Malamutes in their ancestry" for which we currently have no reference. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reply to this last night, but was banned so I lost the links I was going to share! Anyway, if you would like some, I will be happy to dig them up again! There is a lot of "controversy" regarding the GIANT Malamutes (just like there was over MY "Shilohs" back in the 70's & 80's) so it will be hard to find good (accurate) sources for that section & I promised not to devulge the name of the *real* kennel that helped me develop Samson ... hmmm not sure how to present this info properly? MaShiloh 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If its something that's a trade secret and cannot be divulged, it probably won't meet the standards of verifiability and should be removed. Anyone want to start work on a better opening paragraph? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like this[2] will work as a reference for the Malamute component. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tina would be the best person to introduce her dogs :) SandraSS

That's a great project -- how to condense the breed to one paragraph :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why a dog that nowhere near fits the standard is being portrayed as a good example of the breed? I thought this site was about truths? --ShilohLynne 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How unfortunate and sad that some editors would find it necessary to resort to disparaging these beloved dogs, particularly editors who have contributed little, if anything, to the hard work that has gone into this article and who claim to love these Shilohs. Jareth has already requested once that this stop and I completely agree. I'm sure these "personal" attacks would not be appreciated if directed at anyone's Shilohs and and they have no place and serve no purpose in our article discussions here. Please get over it. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| 02-1-2006 01:08 (UTC)

Further forward

Alright, we've now got a history section that most everyone can live with for the time being. Its not the most brillant prose in the world and it certainly doesn't do a lot of justice to the scope of the development of the Shilohs. What would everyone think about adding something about how the dogs were actually developed? Something about the lines/breeds chosen and maybe techniques used to get the breed to this point?

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that its not a book -- we don't have to worry about size. So is anyone up to making this not just acceptable, but a great article? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

...or perhaps we could consider greatly expanding the section and seperating into breed history, club history and registry history? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. Having separate categories would look a lot better than that mish-mash of information currently showing. These dogs deserve a lot better than that. SandraSS 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded 13:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

Seems to me, since there is there hasn't been much agreement about these particular issues in the Shiloh history, that it is better at this point to leave the history section as is, since it is neutral. Re: breed history, as Jareth said: "If its something that's a trade secret and cannot be divulged, it probably won't meet the standards of verifiability", so how would we be able to discuss the breed and not discuss a contributor like "Samson"? Re: club/registry history, if you look back in the last 8 pages of archives, there were numerous attempts to include neutral, respectful histories of the NSBR-TSSR-SSBA and ISSDC and those efforts were met with criticism. Many, if not all, of the earlier proposals by some editors wanted either no mention of these registries/club or only mention in a derogatory or comparative fashion. This was not accepted because many editors argued these positions were inaccurate, POV and not neutral, and our first Straw Poll showed this strong consensus that these registries/club should be included and respected in this article. So, at this point, I think we should leave well enough alone for now and move on to other remaining article tasks. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| 02-1-2006 00:40 (UTC)

I support Jareth's suggestion of seperating the article into breed history, club history, and registry history. I too think it is a great idea.


I would like to see the separate categories. I'm very interested in how the breed was developed, and think that should be expanded on quite a bit. That would help to put the focus of the article back on to the dogs, instead of so much focus on the politics. SusanT.

I'd love to see work done on this article, but as you can see, many people here are more interested in self-promotion and arguing than actually writing a good article. Its sad really. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've expanded and expanded and expanded -- well, you get the idea. Anyone up to trying to make the opening sound better? I've thought about it every which way but I've had no luck so far. I just don't like anything I come up with. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put the bug in Tina's ear and hopefully she will come up with something brilliant ;) I can't think of anyone more qualified to introduce the Shiloh Shepherd than the breed founder herself. SandraSS 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, I would like to see something about the various activities Shilohs are involved in such as SAR, agility, therapy, conformation, etc. Maybe we can get some ideas together for some commentary about that. |||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 01:07 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I put in a sentence or two specifically about herding and agility, but we could definately add more information on the other activities as well. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To all of the registries/clubs/other vested parties

Take a break folks. Seriously. Go live lives outside of Wikipedia.

Its obvious that quite a number of people here have no interest whatsoever in following the guidelines of Wikipedia. Regardless of how many times its been requested that people read things like the neutral point of view policy or the guidelines on being civil we continue to have constant bickering over every last facet of the article. This silliness over the pictures is really the last straw.

I'm seriously tired of being called names, yelled at and told how stupid Wikipedia is because it won't let you put your point of view in the article. Them's the rules folks. If you don't like it, please feel free to express yourselves elsewhere. If you cannot and will not follow the guidelines and contribute to the article, get the hell out.

An RfC has already been started on one of the contributors; I'm seriously considering expanding it to include the behavior of all of the editors who've come here with nothing but a vested interest in this article and have done absolutely nothing to further the article or anything else on Wikipedia for that matter.

For those of you who have worked hard to compromise and find consensus, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate all of your efforts and the fortitude you've shown to stick with it. For those of you who've taken this chance to learn about the spirit of Wikipedia, I hope you'll go on and continue to contribute in other places -- this dispute is in no way an example of the typical behavior of Wikipedians.

In the grand scheme of things, the content of the article matters little -- the behaviors shown here speak volumes on their own. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Health section

I added a few details about the conditions listed in the health section to help expand the section a bit. Any other thoughts for that section? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to put the GTF link back in the article? OR is it too soon to ask ;) SandraSS 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the references into the proper section, Dr. Padgett's study is one of the references for the health section, so it will appear there. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth - the description of pano in the health section - could it possibly be re-worded to: Pano, similar to growing pains, is a self limiting syndrome (need a better word there) exhibited by shifting leg lameness. As is common in other large breeds, onset can be sudden but episodes Italic textusually resolve within a few weeks. Usually, no more episodes are experienced when the dog reaches physical maturity.

The reference to Dr Padgett's book and Shiloh Shepherds is really seriously out of date. No, I don't want it removed. Had Dr Padgett lived longer, perhaps he might have updated not only Shilohs, but other breeds as well. As you have done with the other sections, would it be possible to list the links to the GTF and whatever links the others wish to provide?

Corinne Corfil 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated the Pano section -- thanks for pointing that out; I had lumped it in with the other skeletal disorders, but it does generally go away on its own, unlike the others. Good catch! Feel free to edit the wording further if I didn't get it quite right.

I believe there was concern raised about the GTF link before due to its other links page on the site. I'm not sure that we ever came to a conclusion on it. The references section is by no means complete yet and will be updated as other things become available -- suggestions are welcome. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I know right now there's concern on both sides that some of the references contain one or another POV and you'd be correct. However, we do have both sides represented so that both are available to readers. We need to try to maintain this balance, but we can't pretend that the POVs and the dispute surrounding them doesn't exist. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have brought this conversation to the Health section topic.

Further, there are other health concerns not mentioned, some more prevalent than some that are mentioned. I am in the process of reviewing the wording and content of the health section. An example I do not agree with the wording of hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia occurs from a malformation of the hip, not from incomplete growth. Can we slow down here and give editors a chance to comment on this health section? Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What other conditions do you feel should be mentioned? Are there any listed now that you don't believe is a prevalent health issue? And you're right about dysplasia, improper growth would have been a better wording, but I'm sure there's an even better way to put it than that -- feel free to fix it :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how prevalent these are in the general population, but I know there are dogs affected by EPI and SAS. SandraSS 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Haven't seen an answer to this yet, so please comment. What remaining factual disputes are there on the article? That tag really isn't meant to stay there forever, just until the dispute is cleared up. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If noone has any further disputes about the facts in the article, I'll go ahead and take the tag off. Last chance to speak up :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see the dispute tag removed, and I don't want to be the one that stops it, however, with the history of disputes that this article has undergone and with the fact that the article is far from being in a completed status, I would hesitate to remove it at this time. It has definitely taken on a different tone, with all involved, but the current section that is being finalized has take months to complete. There are still other sections that need revised (ie..the health section) and still a lot of passion surrounding these areas. That is my two-cents but will hear other editors opinions and will agree to the majority vote here.iamgateway 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also hesitant to remove the dispute tag, with other sections unfinished. Thanks to all for the good compromises and helpful suggestions the last couple of days. S Scott 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott
Due to recent insertions there are still disputes and removing the tag would be premature. ShenandoahShilohs 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Job!!

I LOVE what you have done with the article!! I was looking at it last night and trying to figure out how to move the pictures around to make it look "less cluttered" Love the Gallery and reference section you added too. Good job!!

Just a thought tho. Could the picture of Laz be put back in the Appearance section next to the size part? Just because you have labled him as "showing size" SandraSS 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to expand the appearance section so we could fit him right up there too -- anyone want to take a stab at adding some more description up there? Its just about long enough now :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I squeezed and added some more appearance info. Now to work on the poor temperment section -- it looks so out of place since everything else is growing. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to figure out how to add a picture - is there somewhere I could send a picture to be included in the Gallery? CorinneCorfil 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you've uploaded it, just let me know where its at, if not, you can go to my user page, click on Email this user (in the lower left hand box) and send it over, or:
  1. Click on "upload file" in the sidebar
  2. Select the file from your computer that you want to upload
  3. Select a descriptive name for the image
  4. Select the appropriate license for the file
  5. Edit the page you want the image to appear on, and include in the gallery: Image:(Filename you chose in step 4).(extension of file, case sensitive)|Caption text
  6. Save the page with an edit summary that describes what you did (eg. "added image") .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Temperment section

I wanted to bring this up here first since I anticipate there may be some disagreement on this subject. I'd like to add something in the section about the puppy temperment testing. As I understand it, breeders with the ISSR are required use the LER, developed by Tina and breeders with the other registries may use the Volhard test; both are done at or around 8 weeks of age. If there's no concerns with including that information, I'll put it in, otherwise we can hash it out or decide it would just be better to leave out. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem is stating the ISSR uses the LER that Tina specifically developed to temperament test ISSR puppies and the others use whatever it is they use. SandraSS 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the LER requirement for ISSR registrable litters included also.

Thanks for the change on the pano section.

In the begining part of the temperament section it is stated that Shilohs are good at personal protection. When I think of personal protection dogs, I think more of attack type trained dogs. I think that would be at odds with the ideal companion characteristic. Shilohs will protect what they consider as "theirs" but I think it would be an aberration of temperament for them to really get into personal protection type work. Could that be softened a bit?

Corinne Corfil 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. "Personal" for them is really personal :) I can see how the name might be a bit misleading. Perhaps we can seperate it out with a small sentence like I did for agility and herding to better explain it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the agility reference and I'd also like to see something re: Shilohs also participating/competing in conformation show rings. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 13:25 (UTC)
Like I said above, it would be great to have a short note about each sport or activity and perhaps an explanation of why Shilohs are well suited for it. :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, could the temperament section be limited to the temperament of the breed? If others want to list activities, could another heading be started for that sort of thing? ie: Sports/Activites. SandraSS 15:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorted that out; see if there's anything more in the temperment section you think should be moved elsewhere. Working Shiloh Shepherds section has been started and a little more added to it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What does the R in LER stand for? I've seen it called the Litter Evaluation Program, but I want to make sure I get it right before we put in the bit about puppy testing. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

LER stands for Litter Evaluation report It is something that is prepared for the breeder in order to help them with proper placement of their pups! Not every puppy is the same .. some have more drive then people would want, but they could be great for SAR work, etc... Placing a "couch potato" into a *working* home and a "working dog" with an older couple could become a problem!! We also evaluate breeding potential ... a dog with a horrible hook/gay tail (like a Malamute) could still be a wonderful companion ... but should NOT be used for breeding ... etc. etc. MaShiloh 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

History Section divided

I have divided the history into Breed/Club/Registry. The information is pretty much the same as in the article now, just put into the different categories and re-worded to make sense. I think this looks better than what is currently showing. Please have an open mind when commenting. SandraSS 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

--Breed History--

In 1974, Tina Barber began developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo.

In 1990, Barber separated her stock from the AKC and in 1991 started the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). Ms. Barber continues to actively participate in the development of the breed. She is the President of the SSDCA, Inc and Breed Warden of the ISSR.

--Club History--

In 1990, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was formed. In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive. During this time, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. The SSDCA reopened in 1998. The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reopened in 2004.

I don't want to "nit-pick" but the second ISSDC is not the same as the first This is a new group, consisting of the secretary from the original ISSDC (that Gary & Dan started) plus a few others MaShiloh 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

--Registry History--

Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until Ms.Barber opened the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) in 1991.

In 1998 the ISSDC opened their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. In 2001, the ISSDC registry was closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed registry functions for the ISSDCr. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) in 2002.

I can only see a couple of things incorrect. The SSDCA was started in 1991, not 1990 per all other writings including the origins book and the NYS Incorporation web site.
Also, the NYS Incorporation shows the ISSR as 1993, but the Origins book states 1992. Since it could have been operating for a while before incorporation I can agree to 1992, not 1991.
Last thing, you have listed the start of the registry in both the history and the registry section. I don't think it needs to be in both, it is redundant.
Other than that I think it looks fine.ShenandoahShilohs 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The SSDCA was incorporated in July 1991 ... and if THAT is the criteria that we shall use, then by all means .. please use ONLY the proper Incorporation dates for all "registries" "clubs" etc.... FAIR ENOUGH?? Otherwise, since the ISSR is *my* "registry" and it consists of MY data, that I have collected since 1974 ... maybe we should state that the ISSR represents ALL of Tina Barbers data, collected since the breeds inception in 1974?? MaShiloh 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tina has a point. Are we going with when the entities were first started or when they were first incorporated? What about those entities that have never been incorporated? What source are we using to verify when they were started? ie: NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, new ISSDC? SandraSS 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the seperation of sections is a clean approach. It reads well, it is balanced and I would vote a "go" on it. I would like to see the adjustments that ShenandoahShilohs added for the tweaks on the dates as they can then be proven via NPOV's. The repetition of the "start of the registry" would be better listed once in either the history or the registry section. Other than those small pieces, it looks good. iamgateway 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this is my suggestion. I do not speak for the SSDCA Board or other SSDCA editors. They may have different ideas. The dates will have to be verified by Tina/SSDCA Board. SandraSS 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reopened in 2004" should to be changed to "The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reorganized in 2004 as a unifying parent club for the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA registries. |||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 12:52 (UTC)

This clarifies the reorganization much better and also gives the club seperation of organizations (to avoid confusion) which I know people want clarified. This addition is necessary. Good idea and good catch. iamgateway 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The clubs are talked about in the Club section, the registries are talked about in the Registry section. The reader can visit the links to find out further information re: what clubs are associated with what registries. SandraSS 15:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't hurt to point out that the SSDCA is the parent club for the ISSR and the ISSDC is the parent club for the others. Wouldn't need to be anything more than just a couple of words. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a question about this. Is it possible for owners of ISSR registered dogs to be members of the ISSDC? Also, are there owners of NSBR, TSSR, or SSBA registered dogs that are members of the SSDCA? I just wonder if making that distinction would lead people to think that each club is exclusive to their own registry and which club you can join depends on where the dog is registered. SandraSS 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The SSDCA constitution states "the I.S.S.R., Inc. as the only legitimate registry" and "to refer prospective new Shiloh Shepherd puppy owners ONLY to breeders that are in good standing with the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America, Inc." and allows non-breeders to join as long as they are in "good standing with the ISSR". The ISSDC states "This club recognizes all Shiloh Shepherds regardless of registry affiliation." and is open to anyone who "subscribes to the purposes and objectives of the ISSDC and agrees to abide by the ISSDC Code of Ethics". Between those well worded statements and many of the statements that have appeared during the discussions I would suggest that it would be highly improbable that a member of the ISSR would be permitted to join the ISSDC and vice versa. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually this is incorrect. The ISSDC openly accepts members from the ISSR/SSDCA. It's pretty clearly explained at the bottom of the ISSDC Open Invitiation. A number of former members have made the switch over since the ISSDC inception. Your comments that "I would suggest that it would be highly improbable that a member of the ISSR would be permitted to join the ISSDC" is untrue. Gwyllgi 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. I didn't mean to suggest that you wouldn't accept anyone, just that I don't believe one could be a member of both at the same time. IIRC, Tina has explicitly stated that one cannot be a member of ISSR/SDDCA and any other club/registry. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't recommend that anything in the History section, as it currently appears in the article, be changed on the face of the article page, until a full revision with any and all new suggestions and changes, is presented here for review and consenses. Suggestions are flying fast right now and I don't want to see other editors miss the opportunity to comment and contribute, with us then having another dispute over "whats in the article". Until we all have a chance to consider these suggestions and add our consensus, and before anything is changed in the article history section, we really need to see a "final" version on the talk page first. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 15:53 (UTC)

Ok, encorporating the suggestions made so far and a little movement for readability, how's this?

--Breed History--

In 1974, Tina Barber began developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo.

In 1990, Barber separated her stock from the AKC. She continues to actively participate in the development of the breed. She is the President of the SSDCA, Inc. and Breed Warden for the ISSR.

--Club History--

In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was formed. In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive for a short period of time. They reopened in early 1998 and remains active as the breed club for the ISSR.

During SSDCAs inactive period, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was opened. The ISSDC closed in 2001 and was reorganized in 2004 as the breed club for the SSBA, NSBR and TSSR.

--Registry History--

Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until Ms. Barber opened the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) in 1992.

In 1998 the ISSDC opened their own registry, called the ISSDCr. It was closed in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after to assume its registry functions. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) in 2002.

Anything else that needs changed/added/removed? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be difficult Jareth, but could we wait until other SSDCA editors have had a chance to review this topic and respond? Taking the word of an ISSDC representative as to what dates are correct for the SSDCA/ISSR seems a bit odd to me. Another thing, IF it is going to be stated which club is involved with which registry, could it be stated that the SSDCA is the breed club for the ISSR and not the partner as I don't think that is accurate. SandraSS 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't planning on moving it any time soon, just trying to get it started in the right direction. I actually verified the dates with what we have in the article right now, which I believe were agreed upon earlier, but I'd be happy to wait until we're sure those are the right dates. And you're correct about the clubs, I've worded them both the same now. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I found this link that shows the ISSR was registering litters in 1991. Will this be satisfactory proof that the ISSR was started in 1991?
In looking at the charts on this link there were ISSR litters born in 1990, so saying the ISSR was started in 1991 seems fair to me. SandraSS 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The changes in the latest draft of the club history were not suggested on this discussion page. I suggest we keep the version that editors have already agreed to (just below the "History Divided" topic heading), which includes the minor additions and changes that were brought up amicably right after the draft. Otherwise, portions of the article that have consensus already will be reopened for discussion and possible conflict. This would be going backwards.

Club history agreed to: "In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was formed. In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive. During this time, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. The SSDCA reopened in 1998. The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reopened in 2004."

With a sentence added at the end, as mentioned in the earlier exchange, the registry history will read

"Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until Ms.Barber opened the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) in 1991.

"In 1998 the ISSDC opened their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. In 2001, the ISSDC registry was closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed registry functions for the ISSDCr. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) in 2002. When the ISSDC reorganized in 2004, it became the unifying parent club for the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA."

S Scott 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Excuse me for not getting your opinion before I tried to reword it so that it at least made sense. Since the childish behavior over the article shows no signs of stopping, I will be filing an addendum to the current editor RfC in an attempt to retain what little sanity I have left. I have never seen people behave in such a manner. I repeat my suggestion that all editors with vested interests find other articles to edit or other things to do with their time. It would be nice if you all would allow editors who couldn't care less about your stupid dispute to write a coherent article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked this question in another part of this topic and it might have been overlooked. As for the dates used in the history sections. Are we using the dates these entities were formed or when they were officially incorporated? If using dates formed, then the SSDCA was formed in 1990 and the ISSR was formed in 1991. Since there is no verifiable 3rd party source to prove when any of the other entities were formed other than personal websites, the dates provided by Tina for the SSDCA/ISSR ie: 1990/1991, should be acceptable. SandraSS 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to include (under the registry history section) the reasons why so many registries were started and why they were stopped and so on? Filwj 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)sue

Those discussions took place earlier, and editors from all registries decided to stick to dates. The discussions are available in the archives.S Scott 19:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

OK, what about the incorporation dates. Could you inform us of when each registry was incorporated rather than when each was started? Would that be better? Thanks Filwj 19:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)sue

Article Appearance: Suggestion

On the article page, there is one place that I would like, somehow, to clean up. Between the contents list and the top picture, there is a wide white blank space. Can there be something added, enlarged, placed there so that the reader is prompted to scroll down. As it stands, It comes up on most screens as a large void. I would like to see something that would hook the reader to want to read through the article, in that blank void. What about the puppy picture? That may crowd that area, but not if it is done with balance. Any other suggestions? iamgateway 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's a software thing -- we can't actually put anything in there. The breed box on the right gets away with it because its stuffed in a table at the very top of the article. I tried to put some longer section titles in so there isn't quite so much white space, but I'm afraid we're mostly stuck with it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

References and External Links (adds)


External links

Since there has been much so discussion and dispute among all editors, re: the inclusion of original resources and information in the actual article page, Jareth has suggested these controversial inclusions could be moved to the talk page for further discussion and consensus. Perhaps we can all take a little time to think about, discuss and figure out what's appropriate and agreeable. Thank you.|||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 15:32 (UTC)

I've put these back for now, since a wikipedia article cannot exist without citing its sources. Discuss though, in my outsiders viewpoint - it looks like both groups are represented here. No single groups status is elevated over the other. - Trysha (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not a finished article. This is an article in development and dispute. This has existed without references since when, 2003? The concerns do not involve "elevation" stated above they involve original research and verifiability. These inclusions have not reached consensus. In addition, we are not objecting to the inclusion of a References section, we are concerned with some of the inclusions in that seciton and the External links section. I can appreciate the need to perform to Wiki policy...that is why these inclusions are of such concern. Finally, there are numerous dog breed articles that do not include a References section...see GSD page. Why is this particular unfinished article's reference section of such concern now. Thank you.|||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 16:22 (UTC)

Pardon my disagreement but I am not sure how you can claim no single groups status has not been elevated. In the reference and external link section one group has a link to nothing more than a pdf showing some Shiloh coat colors. There are no other links attached, no disparaging remarks made toward anyone.
The next link to that group shows the versiatility of the Shiloh Shepherd Breed. While there are navigational links to the main web site there are no disparaging remarks made about other Shiloh groups on that site.
One of the main link of contention is:
We feel it falls under: wp:Original research and the following Wiki policies should apply.
Evaluating experiments and studies

There are certain techniques that scientists use to prevent results from being contaminated by certain kinds of common errors, and to help others replicate results.

Experimental control Placebo controls Ensuring demographic information aligns with the general population to check that the sample is sufficiently random

Double-blind medical studies

Present a high degree of detail about the design and implementation of the experiment; don't just present the results.

Make raw data available; don't just present conclusions


Statistical information is easily and often misinterpreted by the public, by journalists, and by scientists. It should be checked and explained with the utmost care, with reference to published sources.

See Misuse of statistics, Opinion poll, and Statistical survey for common errors and abuses
Further, comments made on various sections of this web site are not only false, they are certainly not proven and one person's POV used to disparage others. This is just one example from this web site, I would be happy to cite more if needed:


Now take a moment to look at the next 3 charts that actually list the diseases reported! You may notice that it appears as if genetic diseases are becoming more prevalent since additional diseases are being added to the pie ... but in reality, many of the dogs that have been producing these problems have already gone "over" to the splinters and will NOT be effecting our gene pool any longer!! Nevertheless, if we are not careful, we could be looking at charts that are MUCH worse than these!! So please take some time to ponder the individual groups, as you keep in mind that many of those that should have submitted their information to this study did NOT do so ;( "

Also on Wiki:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues).

Further, many of these references fall short of WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV
The acceptance of these links, as well as other edits, have been in discussion for two months now. There has been an agreed upon moratorium to additional information and links pertaining to the article until community concensus had been reached. There was a request for mediation filed. Nothing has really been finalized and may need to go to RFC and ARB to do so.
While it would be great to have an indepth article that may just not be possible with so many disputes and no real third paty reliable sources available at this time. To quote another admin, Wiki is an ongoing process and as more verifiable, third party resources may come available then at that time maybe more can be added. Until that time I don't think is is justified to place verbage or links to a disputed article that has not met either community consenus or gone to arbitration.
In fairness to the editors that have spent two months on this article I request the removal of the links in the reference and external link section for the reasons stated.
Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Make raw data available; don't just present conclusions - does anyone have a link to the raw data from the study or another reference for the common health problems in Shilohs?
  • Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence - honestly, are the health problems an "exceptional claim"??
Here's the deal guys, like Trysha said, articles *must* have sources. Just because others exist that don't doesn't make them right -- feel free to go add references to those articles. The dispute exists -- the sides obviously don't get along -- hiding links won't change this or people's ability to find out about it. Unless you're saying that the information in the health survey is wrong and thus the health section shouldn't be based off of it? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Since the info at the GTF isn't the raw data, the link has been removed. If anyone has the original data from Dr. Padgett's study somewhere, we can link it or just leave the reference as is. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the information on the ISSR Website as "Dr. Padgett's study" is incorrect. As I understand it, Dr. Padgett was given results from the health survey that had been tabulated by someone in the ISSR and commented on those results.S Scott 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Health problems in themselves aren't "exceptional claims." However, data in the ISSR health survey results are. The results state that Shilohs have about an 11% incidence of hip dysplasia. OFA stats indicate around 22% for the breed. (Don't have the page up, but it's in the low 20%.) This is a huge difference. The ISSR figure is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional evidence. Because the health survey results can't be verified, the link to them should not appear in a Wiki article. S Scott 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

I must really be dense as I do not understand what the problem is for having those reference/external links included. I visited all of the ISSR/SSDCA/Barber links and there is nothing on any of those pages other than the information. Is the problem that there are more of the ISSR/SSDCA links provided than ISSDC links? That is probably due to the fact that the ISSR/SSDCA have been in existence longer than the other groups and have had the opportunity to accomplish more. As for the GTF link, is it possible to refer it to the ISSR GTF Project? The GTF is an ongoing project that includes more than just Dr. Padgett's findings, but rather is continually updated.SandraSS 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some true third party reliable sources for the Reference section (re: health) such as OFA [3], Penn HIP [4] and CERF [5]. Further, since the source of our breed's primary genetic make up comes from the German Shepherd why not link to a Veterinarian web site like this one,[6], listing the most common ailments. These organizations are not only third party reliable, they are non-affiliated, unbiased repositories for raw data, and widely accepted throughout the canine world. Thank you. |||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 18:44 (UTC)

Oh, darn. And we were doing so well on this, too. I am in serious disagreement with the links being added in the reference section without discussion and agreement on this page and ask that they be removed until we can get all this resolved.

First of all, the wording and formatting of the link with Dr. Padgett's name in it are misleading in the extreme. The format is identical to that of the other links. Those links are to publications written by the author or organization: Tina Barber, ISSDC, SSDCA.

Looking at the reference, the reader would conclude that Dr. Padgett wrote an article on health concerns in the Shiloh Shepherd. This is untrue. Following the link takes the reader to the ISSR Web site. Most of the page consists of a table of diseases/defects.

At the bottom of the page are these two statements, which are the only references to Dr. Padgett:

"To learn more about the methodology used on our health survey, as well as the terminology used here in this webpage, please read 'Control of Canine Genetic Diseases' by Dr. George A. Padgett DVM

"We owe a special debt of thanks to Dr. Padgett for working with Tina Barber and the ISSR registered Shiloh Shepherd breeders, and for the seminar at Homecoming 2001 where he presented his findings from the results of the Shiloh Shepherd Health Survey 2000."

The health survey results don't appear to be verifiable. It is my understanding that Dr. Padgett didn't conduct the health survey. That is, he didn't receive all the completed survey forms directly from respondents, have the results tabulated under his supervision or tabulate them himself, and then present his findings in hard copy format. Rather, he commented on the results that he was given, which didn't include raw data.

Sorry, that is a conclusion you have reached based on.......???

Corinne205.188.116.13 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Dr. Padgett didn't publish an article on the results that's available to the general public. Were his comments on survey results given orally? As it stands now, the results appear to be unverifiable, and including that link is problematic. Please let me know if I've misunderstood any aspects of this dilemma. Regards, S Scott 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

The seminar was taped. Not by anyone currently affiliated with the SSDCA - would that be acceptable?

Corinne205.188.116.13 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think that now might be a good time to look back and read the proposal contents of the first Straw Poll and its results, showing overwhelming consensus (18-4-7 I think) to accept "all points", as confirmed and stated by editors, incuding two adminstrators, Elf and Trysha. It should also be noted, there has been no consensus or Straw Poll since then nullifying or reversing it.
I think the proposal, and the resulting poll affirming it, addresses both how article links were going to be handled and also how information re: Shiloh Shepherd health was going to be handled:
Thank you. |||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 20:23 (UTC)

I wondered when this would come back up. I never understood why no changes were made to the article based on it. However, regarding the health section:
concerning "Health", they have agreed/compromised to refrain from including any statements citing, reviewing, or comparing/contrasting ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, SSDCA, or ISSDC health practices/policies and they propose the "Health" section of the article contain only a statement listing those health issues acknowledged by ALL registries/clubs (gastrointestinal problems -gastric torsion/bloat, bacterial overgrowth syndrome- and skeletal or bone disorders such as hip dysplasia, panosteitis and osteochondritis), a recommendation by ALL registries/clubs that testing be conducted and a statement that "these reports clearly show that, as giant breeds go, the Shiloh is arguably a healthy example".
I see nothing in the health that promotes one registry/club or another. I'm certain testing suggestions can be added, but honestly, "these reports clearly show that, as giant breeds go, the Shiloh is arguably a healthy example" is quite a bit of opinion, especially since you're now disputing "these reports".
Also, the poll did not address anything about references or external links aside from agreeing that all clubs/registries would have a link to their homepage in the section and not multiple links scattered throughout the article. References are required: WP:CITE and WP:V make that clear. Since you agreed that "these reports" should be used as the basis for the health section and the poll confirmed, the reports must be listed in the references section. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, "these reports" were referring to the reports of the verifiable organizations, OFA, PH, CERF that we had edit to include but were removed. Those are the reports I was agreeing to. They are 3rd party reliable sources. ShenandoahShilohs 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

At one point during this lengthy discussion, wasn't it your position that the majority of the data was not from ISSR dogs in OFA, PH and CERF? So the statistics that those 3rd party sources represent the affected status of mostly non-ISSR dogs?

Corinne 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct to assume by the above statement that ISSR registered dogs do not have their hips/elbows examined by OFA/Pennhip? If so, what is the method for obtaining such testing on the dogs and what party determines their status, and hence what provides the source findings that would be used in the survey? This is not instigating, but rather trying to validate the source data used for such a survey on the breed. Gwyllgi

You may assume anything you like. However, that was not what I said. In this discussion the OFA dysplastic percentage for Shilohs was stated to be 22%. My memory may be faulty, but I thought the statement as I wrote it was one of the original arguments made by that poster. Corinne

Perhaps the confusion lies on our part as we are all relatively new members of the Wiki community. I've tried my best to understand the three content policies and my understanding is that they are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I guess where I get lost is when something being used as WP:V or WP:CITE is seemlingly (via my interpretation - which could be wrong) in breach of one of the three content policies. I guess I'm just not following how an editors own articles (or any contritubor articles - regardless of affiliation) are accepted if they contain original research and POV.
The example I guess would be the GTF survey whereby it would seem to fall under a breach of this section as it is source material and self generated. Let's say the DJD rate was reported at 2%, would that be true/accurate? Who knows. Sources such as OFA do provide breed specific reports that are available on line. I would guess that using those sources would be considered as provided by a third party with no vested interest in the results.
Or another statement contained in the "Origins" link that was inserted into the article Origins Chapter 5 which has a quote: "...I had almost forgotten who's dogs they really were!! My boss, The Jewish Carpenter from Nazareth, had other plans for HIS breed.". Now, whether or not I agree with a statement like that is totally irrelevant, but what is relevant is that I would assume this would be POV and is being cited as a reference source for the article? Perhaps others may feel it's Allah's breed, or belong to Buddha, or even the Flying_Spaghetti_Monster, who knows, everyone will have a different opinion on this.
Like other editors on both sides of the fence here, a lot of time has been spent on this article and we still have much work to do. Items like these will hinder forward progress just when forward progress/compromise is being found.
I think both side are working to reach a collective middle ground, but articles with such POV and Original research that cannot be validated will be difficult to agree upon. Again, if my interpretation of some of the Wiki content policies is incorrect simply let me know - I am trying to understand them and utilize them in this article and other areas I am trying to contribute on Wiki. Gwyllgi
These sections may help:
  • Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly.
  • Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account.
  • A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.
So we can use sources that are POV, especially when we also uses sources from the opposing POV and this is extremely important for controversial topics. When we use something that has POV in it, we should try to have other sources as well. For all these reasons and also because it doesn't contain the raw data, the link to the GTF was removed from the reference and only the fact that Dr. Padgett prepared a report remains. Since there is no online copy of the data he used to prepare the charts, no link is given. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that OFA, PH or CERF would have data on bloat, SIBO, Pano or OCD? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"a recommendation by ALL registries/clubs that testing be conducted and a statement that "these reports clearly show that, as giant breeds go, the Shiloh is arguably a healthy example".
The statement says that the article should contain a recommendation that Shilohs be tested. The GTF is not a test; it is a survey (see: for "Please let us know if this is the first time you've filled out this survey".) The GTF also collects its data through "self-reporting" by Shiloh owners and does not require submitted 3rd party, professional (i.e. veterinary) test results. The proposal and consensus clearly ties testing and "these reports" to testing, not surveys. Surveys are not mentioned.|||MilesD.||| 02-2-2006 22:46 (UTC)

The GTF is the Genetic Task Force. It is made up of elected Board of Advisors members of the SSDCA Inc and SSDCA member volunteers. Please do not speak to that which you do not have knowledge - regarding what we require for information submitted via the website data collection tool. As I am a very active member of the GTF I do know what goes on and how it is operated. Further, we promised participants in both the health survey and the ongoing data collection tool via the GTF website that their data, dog's name and their own personal information would remain confidential. We honor that pledge and will continue to do so.

Corinne205.188.116.13 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I thought we were talking about a reference to Dr. Padgett who may or may not have created a report that helped identify the incidence of conditions in the Shiloh. What the GTF does now and whether or not its a report doesn't really have any bearing on that. As was noted above, since the link went to an interpretation of the data and not the data itself, it was unlinked.

I am sorry, I am not clear what this is referring to. Corinne

How precisely would you suggest you gather health results across a breed? What "test" would you perform? Dr. Padgett's surveys and work with genetics are quite well known and respected. This was not an opinion survey, but a collection of diagnosed conditions to form the basis of raw data for reporting. Since you agree with the results from that study, what precisely is the issue? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess what's being questioned is that Dr Padgett provided a summary of the data that was presented to him through original research with no verifiable sources. No one is challenging Dr Padgett himself, but rather the findings that he presents. Eg. if the report submitted (300ish Shilohs reported) had zero health fault would the report then say that this breed is superior and without health issues? The summary is only as good as the data which unfortunately is unverifiable. It should also be noted that since the survey is only open to "ISSR registered shilohs" any data that is collected from dog owners is only from a "closed section" of the shiloh breed and technically club/registry specific. I suppose the concern here is that the incidence of condition report relies on unverifiable and disputed data.
You state "This was not an opinion survey, but a collection of diagnosed conditions to form the basis of raw data for reporting." Was it vet findings, OFA/Pennhip X-rays, etc that were submitted to compile the data? I cannot speak for others, but I have issues when unverifiable information is used as source material and is take from a group that has a vested interest in demonstrating excellent health. I'm surprised this is earning so much discussion. Gwyllgi

Jareth, for comparison purposes on how the Health Survey was conducted, look to the White Shepherds. They were the folks who initially introduced us to Dr Padgett and the Health Survey that the SSDCA conducted was the of a similar pattern as that of the White Shepherds. Perhaps you could ask the chair of their genetic committee how those initial statistics were gathered/compiled? Corinne 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am having a hard time trying to understand the above paragraph. It says that no one is challenging Dr Padgett himself, but rather the findings he presents. Well, darn, how can anyone answer that, the man is dead. The data is not unverifiable, what it is is confidential and not available in its raw form to you or anyone else. As to it being open only to ISSR registered dogs, that is a misinterpretation that I have seen time and again - to what purpose? Corinne

And you know that is it unverified just because you term it as such? I am also surprised that you keep beating a dead horse. Corinne

And I also said -- Provide another source that states the common health problems of the Shiloh or delete the damn section. Since everyone seems to agree with the common health problems that Dr. Padgett discovered and since I *highly* doubt a man of his integrity would be duped by tainted data, I find it amazing that this dispute continues. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not insinuate anything that would grant a comment such as "since I *highly* doubt a man of his integrity would be duped by tainted data". I stated there was no verification of the data used, is there something available that indicates otherwise. I too find it amazing the insistance of accepting a report based on unverifiable data and sponsored by a group with a bias towards the result. I suppose I object that in the absence of verifiable third party sources that unverifiable ones are being utilized. Gwyllgi

Dr. Padgett did not discover these health problems. Whether the problems exist is not the focus of the disagreement. It's the incidence of the problems that can't be verified.

The surveys, which were based on self-reports by owners, not vet reports, were completed by self-nominated Shiloh owners - the survey wasn't random. The surveys were mailed to the ISSR, the results were tabulated by the ISSR, those results were given to Dr. Padgett, and he commented on the results given to him. The information on which he based his remarks is not verifiable.

In addition, the incidence of one of the most prevalent health conditions in Shilohs, hip dysplasia, was reported by the ISSR at 11%. OFA reports it around 22%. This is an astonishing difference. There is no way to verify the 11%.

It's puzzling to me that anyone would claim the information should be linked to or included.

If we use information from the independent organizations that receive vet reports - OFA, CERF, etc., we'll be using verifiable information as to condition and incidence. If we also list the health problems of the GSD, we'll cover virtually all health concerns of Shilohs. S Scott 00:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

"It should also be noted that since the survey is only open to "ISSR registered shilohs" any data that is collected from dog owners is only from a "closed section" of the shiloh breed and technically club/registry specific."

This statement is actually not true. The GTF survey is not restricted to ISSR registered dogs. SandraSS 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Then contrary to claims made in this talk and found in some of the sources referenced throughout these discussions over the past few months that "non-ISSR" registered dogs are indeed Shiloh Shepherds and not "GSD mixes" or "mutts" as previously claimed. Is there any information that you can offer as to what percentage of Shilohs submitted to the ISSR health survey (GTF) are ISSR registered and non-ISSR registered Shiloh Shepherds? Gwyllgi

That is a really interesting way of using something that wasnt said to try to prove a POV. Please stop asking for the data, you won't get it. The health survey that was conducted is completed. Those statistics/numbers however you want to term it is completed. The public dissemination of confidential information to suit you and others will not happen. The data collection via the GTF website is ongoing.

We are not asking for a full blown explanation in the article about either the GTF or the health survey. Just that the link to the GTF remain. Corinne

I'd just like to note that no one has tried to add specific percentages to the article based on any research. I guess the question is, do you dispute any of the conditions listed as common health problems? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A little background on the health survey. The questionnaire was based on that of the White Shepherd. It was reviewed by Dr. Padgett prior to its being published on our website and sent out to all owners of registered ISSR Shiloh Shepherds in 2000. The survey was open to all.

Completed survey forms were sent to the TCCP and forwarded in batches to me as a member of the Genetic Task Force for data entry. We received surveys from owners of dogs registered both with the ISSR and with the ISSDCr. We still have copies of all the original surveys.

Dr. Padgett had a standard procedure for receiving data on the breed surveys. He specified exactly how he wanted to receive the results of the survey and what type of information was to be provided. The raw data was summarized in a table according to his stated requirements. He then made his calculations and produced his chart for the club. This was his standard operating procedure. As Corinne already noted, Dr. Padgett presented the results in a seminar to a large group of people at our 2001 Homecoming, with his lecture recorded on video.

Trillhill 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is now clear that Dr Padgett only made calculations on what was provided to him. The surverys went through numerous hands, and due to the unwillingness to provide verification of the raw data used and the fact it was based on a small percentage of Shilohs, there is contention that it should not be used to ascertain the health issues of Shilohs.
Further it does not meet Wiki's guidelines for scientific research. If necessary, mention of Dr Padgett's survery as it is now under references with no links could be acceptable. Linking to it would be providing unverifiable statistics. Again, one could revisit Wiki's Scientific research and the section on the possible misuses of statistics.
I would also like to see reference to the organizations I have previously mentioned. They are third party reliable sources highly accepted by the canine world and give proof to many of the Shiloh Shepherd's health concerns by utilizing raw data from certified Veterinarians. I also feel the link to a Veterinarian website listing ailments for GSD's would be a reliable source of health concerns for the Shiloh since our breed's genetic makeup is primarily GSD and are suseptable to GSD ailments. I feel these are much more reliable than a survery of a limited sampling of dogs with no verifiable documentaion used to complete the survery. It has been said by people that attended Dr Padgetts seminar that it was his recommendation that the only way to utilize this survery and combat health issues was to have an open data base like the White GSD's do. I would have to question why the promotion of his name on this survery if his recommendation are not being followed?

I have no objection to a link for OFA or CERF. If PennHip had an online database I would have no objection to that either. I am hesitant about a link to specifically a GSD site because enough GSD breeders/fanciers already see Shilohs as faulty GSDs and I wouldn't want to add fuel to their fire. Corinne

Further, there are other health concerns not mentioned, some more prevalent than some that are mentioned. I am in the process of reviewing the wording and content of the health section. An example I do not agree with the wording of hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia occurs from a malformation of the hip, not from incomplete growth. Can we slow down here and give editors a chance to comment on this health section?
Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What other conditions do you feel should be mentioned? Are there any listed now that you don't believe is a prevalent health issue? And you're right about dysplasia, improper growth would have been a better wording, but I'm sure there's an even better way to put it than that -- feel free to fix it :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Shenandoah Shilohs wrote: It is now clear that Dr Padgett only made calculations on what was provided to him. The surverys went through numerous hands, and due to the unwillingness to provide verification of the raw data used and the fact it was based on a small percentage of Shilohs, there is contention that it should not be used to ascertain the health issues of Shilohs.
It surprises me that you would say this as you yourself provided information on 37 dogs that you produced or owned that were over one year of age at the time of the survey. You sent this information directly to me. I stated that all the surveys still exist, so how can that be construed as unwillingness to provide verification of the raw data used? As for the survey not being representative please look at the statistics for the level of participation for other breed surveys. Whether or not you agree with Dr. Padgett's protocol, we followed his instructions. If you believe that he personally reviewed all of the surveys that were submitted for other breeds, then you are very sadly mistaken. I feel that with the exception of the Basenji syndrome (which was submitted by the late Mynde Bunker, a member of the GTF, someone who had been associated with the ISSDC and ISSDCr prior to the amnesty in 1999 and who was very well known for all of the health testing done on her Shilohs), the survey results were representative of problems facing the breed at the time the survey was done.Trillhill 13:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute arises all over again

We were so close, it was at consensus. What happened! A random suggest was made when the article was at consensus: "Maybe the other registries could also suggest additional factual information that could be added to the other sections -- or perhaps we could consider greatly expanding the section and seperating into breed history, club history and registry history?" Why this was made, I am not sure, at all. But here it is again, the disputes. And I have to admit, what has been added since that suggestion, should be disputed. Pictures wars came out, NPOV added, editing wars are seemingly going to start up, this is getting very frustrating especially since we were on the verge of concensus. So many editors have spent hours working very hard for this article only to find it in "round two" of things already discussed and settled upon a long time ago. Is there anyway that we can go back to the article that WAS in consensus, revert it to that point and then move forward again? My concern is that editing wars are looming. Editors are making changes without discussion, or respect of presentation to all the other editors working on this article. It is not a single handed literary piece here even though that would make it so much easier to finish, but as it is, there are many passionate editors working with this article. And to make it more tedious, two groups of editors with obvious tension are trying to participate and agree. I just don't understand why the pot was stirred to begin with when we had come so far and we were moving forward. What can be done to bring this article around again? iamgateway 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually like what Jareth has done in expanding the article. She has put a lot of time and work into it and it looks 100% better than it was before. SandraSS 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't think that anyone is disputing that the article has not made forward progress, or the time and efforts put forth by all the editors here. Words such as "immiators" and "dissidents" that were initially present are no longer found, incorrect "TM" symbols have been removed, and I would think that everyone agrees we are getting closer to a NPOV representation of the breed. Unfortunately, just when it appears forward progress begins, set-backs are raised and delay the further development and completion of the article. Gwyllgi

It isn't the restructuring that I was/am concerned about, it is the addition of the links that have been discussed in the past, that were reinstated knowing the disputes that some had behind them. However, if editors from both sides agree to what is being added and is visible as part of the article, I have said I would go with concensus. The disputes are not over the format of article but with the current disputed addition of certain pictures of the dogs and the new addition of the links that don't seem to fall under the Wikipedia rules for links. But if editors from both sides feel this is acceptable and it is approved, then by all means, concensus has been met. Maybe I am misunderstanding the progress, I will revisit the history and editors discussions. iamgateway 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Since the article has been expanded, we see that new photos have been added and photos that were moved to the gallery have been moved back up into the article. So, since there is now more room, we've also now moved the puppies photo, that was moved down to the gallery during the expansion, up to the "variant colors" section and moved the dog photo that was there up to "Appearance". Since the introduction of photos to the article, in a concerted effort to avoid edit wars and reverts, we have not moved, removed, disparaged, or in any way touched, any other photos that have been added by any other editors. We are requesting that the same courtesies and consideration be extended to us and these contributions to this article, unless there is a consensus from all editors that they be changed. As we have refrained from any commentary on the "quality" of any dogs portrayed in any photos that have been added, we also ask again that editors refrain from personally attacking these beloved animals and/or the people who are their breeders or human families and that they adhere to Wiki policy (WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). Thank you. |||MilesD.||| 02-3-2006 14:16 (UTC)

Suggestion for "Working Dog" section

Jareth, would you please add a sentence or two under this section reflecting Shiloh participation in the conformation show ring of dog shows. For the reader, wishing to pursue an interest in Shilohs, I think its helpful for them to see that these dogs are available for their viewing. Perhaps something like "Shiloh Shepherds also participate in conformation competitions at various dog shows open to the public" with maybe a wikilink to "conformation". [[7]] Thank you. |||MilesD.||| 02-3-2006 14:36 (UTC)

Request about recent changes

Busy day yesterday, with lots happening. We'd like to suggest that the editors give each other time to mull over the recent changes and suggestions before making or proposing more edits to the article. Thank you, S Scott 17:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

I thought that's what we were doing a few days ago. I think that's a great suggestion. WindsongKennels 04:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Here lies the problem

Quote: It surprises me that you would say this as you yourself provided information on 37 dogs that you produced or owned that were over one year of age at the time of the survey.

You sent this information directly to me.

I am so glad that at least the claim Barber has made, repeatedly, that I did not participate in this survery has now been proven false. Actually it shows that 10.5% of the surveyed dogs were submitted by me. At the time of the survery I was not affiliated with the ISSR, yet was contacted and asked to participate. I did so willingly as I was lead to believe that the information would be made public so that all breeders could make better breeding decissions. If I had known this would not be the case, and that there would be no open data to benefit anyone I would not have wasted my time. The above comments also show there was no consistency with who gathered the information. It was previously stated that ALL info was to be sent to the TCCP, yet I was told to send it elsewhere. I feel myself, and others, were mislead about the purpose and result of this survery.

As shown, I provided 10.5% of the surveyed dogs, and I know for fact there were others not affiliated with the ISSR that also provided information. Rather than openly sharing the factual data of this survery there has been an attempt to misuse information given. Rather than thanking people for contributing, information gathered was twisted in claims that all the health issues of the survery came from "Splinter's" dogs, or the really good one, our dogs aren't even Shilohs.

So if at least 10.5% and more likely a much higher percentage, of the dogs that submitted information are in the ISSR's words, non Shilohs, than even more reason to dispel this "survey" People were mislead to the purpose of the survery and it has been used as a propaganda tool.

While the ISSR may feel this survery of only 351 dogs, can't say Shilohs since it is their claim that a percentage of them are not Shilohs, is worth while, many challange that view point.

Also, since it is now clear that I provided info on 37 of the 351 dogs, I can personally state that there was no criteria to verify anything I wrote on the survery form. Again, with no raw data available this survery is hardly scientific to represent health issues of the Shiloh Shepherd.

Quote: You sent this information directly to me. I stated that all the surveys still exist, so how can that be construed as unwillingness to provide verification of the raw data used?

Stating that you have the raw data, while not making it ALL public for scrutinization to verify the statistics claimed can most definetely be construed as unwillingness.

Dr. Padgett's Health Survey's

If you take a look at this page, you might be surprised to discover that the BMDCA published their report in almost the same format that we did!!

This page explains HOW this survey works, and WHAT the results mean!

I would like to STRONGLY urge you to read this page!!!

It does not list dogs names ... just GUESSTIMATE % CARRIER FREQUENCY

For example ... there is a 32% possibility that the dog you are using/breeding to will produce UH .. this helps the breeder dig deeper in order to get more statistics regarding THAT disease within the lines that they have chosen. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!

Many breed clubs participated in these surveys .. the smaller ones have chosen NOT to publish the raw data publicly, but just have it available to the breeders, due to the political problems that many breed clubs have to deal with!


Although Dr. Padgett's hope for complete and open sharing of information is a tall order and perhaps somewhat idealistic, the primary point must not be lost-you must identify the problems before you can attempt to fix the problems. A first step for a breed to attempt to learn where problems lie is through health surveys. If it will help reporting, measures can be taken to be certain that these are completely anonymous. The Briard Club of America will send out a health survey in April 2000 to try to identify all of the potentially genetic diseases affecting Briards. This survey will be received and compiled by a third party group. No one owning a Briard will know the result of any individual survey (except their own, of course.) Hopefully, with this survey, if certain problems are found to be widespread, then perhaps a climate of openness and understanding can allow for sharing of information. In this way pedigrees can be analyzed and strides can be made to determine inheritance patterns, develop new tests (genetic of phenotypic) and hopefully decrease the occurrence of the diseases in the Briard. To meet these lofty goals those who own, breed, and love Briards can rise to the challenge.

More examples;

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that you read

I will try to set some time aside to find & list ALL of the breed clubs that have participated in Dr. Padgett's survey, because I believe that this information is extremely important for ALL (honest) breeders to understand.

 Open registries?  Yes, that would be nice, but with the politics that seem to effect the clubs & "registries" within OUR world ... this is not likely going to happen until the Shiloh Shepherd gets FULL recognition, and has only ONLY parent club to represent everyone!!

In the meantime .. if your group gives a darn about this 'breed' why do you spend so much energy trying to bash me & the ISSR, instead of trying to start an OPEN disease registry (like AWSA did) for the dogs you are breeding???

I know that ONE person tried to do this some time ago .. and if anyone here wants to SEE this information, I would suggest that they join the ShilohZone!!! MaShiloh 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here lies the REAL problem

Shenandoah quoted While the ISSR may feel this survery of only 351 dogs, can't say Shilohs since it is their claim that a percentage of them are not Shilohs, is worth while, many challange that view point.


<personal attack removed>

Shenandoah quoted another editors post .. then said Bingo! Dr Padgett didn't do the survery, he used only summarized data given to him and crunched numbers.


Then Shenandoah said Here is a link to the ISSR/SSDCA web site. Even though it was just pubically made known that I did participate in the survery, this site claims I have not.


Only because YOU requested anonymity!

This followed with another attack on Tina Barber's post that was answered with

<personal attack removed>

MaShiloh 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


<link to personal attack in history removed>

No wonder people don't want to post on this talk page! Either their posts get all chopped up with edits .. THEY get attacked by the dissidents -- OR THEIR WORDS GET DELETED!!! MaShiloh 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please treat the other editors with respect and refrain from personal attacks and the over-use of Uppercase and grammatical symbols to communicate with other editors, as this style is easily interpreted as "yelling". There are many editors very interested in contributing to this article in a respectful manner and your cooperation is encouraged and would be appreciated. Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 02-6-2006 19:58 (UTC)

Comments on History section

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post, but I'm finally going to give my two cents about this article:

I think the history section is confusing. First, while it seems like a good idea to give the dates for all the clubs, it is cumbersome in an introductory article such as this. What seems to me to be the most important distinction is this: only one registry has always operated under the breed founder, and continues to do so. That other registries exist can be mentioned, as well as listing them and their various dates of inception, if need be... but this distinction cannot be left unsaid. It is verifiable fact, and need not be said in a negative way; in fact, the editors seem fine with sacrificing brevity to include qualifying statements such as 'as is common in many breeds' etc.

To lose sight of the fact that this breed is stilll in development and its breed founder still overseeing the ISSR is to lose sight with what the Shiloh Shepherd is, the history section of this article should be cleaned up and returned to the roots of this breed. Thank you! 19:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Laura L.

Thanks for the comments :) Its actually been suggested a number of times before that something about the dispute needs to be included, however, the sides have yet to be able to agree on how that should be worded. So far, the history section as it is has been quite a struggle to get agreement with. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is just keep it simple, and state the facts clearly... at least the biggies like that one. The fact that the ISSR is the only registry that operates under the guidance of the breed founder is not in dispute by anyone. People who wish to look into this phenomenal breed-in-development have ample opportunity to peruse the websites of all registries, this article should serve as an introduction to Shilohs. 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Laura L.

I agree with Laura L. Good suggestions and very well said :)Filwj 06:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Sue

I agree totally. The history section of this article is a disgrace. Egos, arrogance and POV have run rampant for over 2 months now and it is time for a real history section to be written. These dogs deserve that and this article is about the dogs, right? Not any groups personal agenda.
Jareth, you have done such a wonderful job in the other sections. You kept them factual and NPOV. I would like to see you write the history section. You are the best choice of all editors here as you are unbiased and have nothing to gain/lose by what is written. SandraSS 13:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In all this messing around with the history, we've really shortchanged the breed history -- I'd like to go with the proposal to split the history into at least two sections, one for the breed history and the other for the club/registry history (this could be two sections as well) so that we can at least have a good representation of how the breed was developed while we figure out how to write the club/registries so that its not so choppy and acceptable to both sides. So, in that vein, I'm working on writing up the actual history of the breed itself and have this so far (I just realized I'm missing the Sampson/MAW line, I'll work on getting that in too):

Breed History

In 1974, Tina Barber began developing a unique line of German Shepherds at Shiloh Shepherd Kennels in New York State. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood in Germany; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo. After years of breeding and training German Shepherds, she chose to start reviving the breed by using the Thuringer lines for intelligence and the mountain shepherd lines for size and soundness.

After years of selective breeding, Ms Barber seperated her foundation stock from the AKC in 1990. When it came time to choose the name for the new rare breed, the FIC pointed out that most people knew her lines by the kennel name, and thus Shiloh Shepherd was chosen.

Today four main lines are recognized, named for the bitches who were instrumental in developing the breed. Kari brought considerable intelligence and fluid movement, Ursa had a beautiful and sound body, Ria contributed the broad head and softer temperment and Sabrina added in the heavier bone structure and plush coats. Knowledge of these dominant lines along with their faults and virtues is paramount when breeding Shilohs; just as crossing these lines correctly can create sound, well formed Shilohs, crossing them incorrectly can result in hip, back or temperment problems.

Ms. Barber continues to actively participate in the development and welfare of the breed, acting as both the President of the SSDCA, Inc. and the Breed Warden for the ISSR.

Hmmmm, quite interesting, Jareth. 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We'd like to take a bit to consider your ideas. Could you please provide the rest of your proposal for the history section now? That way, we can look at the whole draft to see how everything meshes. Thanks, S Scott 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott
Before anything is changed in the history section currently in the article, I'd also like to have an opportunity to read your entire history section proposal, so that we can ensure all information is included and that we have all editors' consensus to warrant a change to the content that is already there and to change the format as it currently stands. Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 02-8-2006 00:18 (UTC)
I have to agree. There have been how many "new" history article changes made? If there are to be any more changes I thought it was to be done with community concensus. I also think the history section, if changed again, should be all in one section, not piece by piece. Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have anything else and this part isn't even finished. I was hoping for some constructive criticism and fact checking as I go instead of getting heaps of problems cropping up after days of work. I haven't got a clue as to how to start on the club/registry history because as far as I've seen, noone can even agree on what that is, much less how it should be stated. -- I'm bugging a few outside people to see if they can help write something for that area. Honestly folks, I'm not dealing with the silliness anymore -- you can choose to work on the article or you can choose not to participate but you cannot choose to not work on the article and participate. Its being changed and proposals are made because frankly, the current version sucks. If you think this is a lot of changes, I doubt you've had much of a look around Wikipedia. Articles here don't stand still; they are never finished; someone can always improve or add something of value. And really, if I wasn't asking for input and looking for consensus, why would I have posted this at all? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The more I look at the history and the more I read it really seems like the breed history and club/registry history become entertwined around the turn of the century -- so maybe splitting things up won't work after all. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, really really rough draft and quick stab at the rest of the history so that anyone who's interested could work on it all at once:

Starting in 1990, Shilohs were registered through the FIC as a seperate breed. At this time, Ms. Barber formed The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) to ?. After the FIC showed some difficulty with standards verification, Ms. Barber and the SSDCA decided to open their own registry in 1991, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). After some documentation issues became evident, The Complete Computer Place (TCCP) was contacted in 1992 to design a program to process registry data for the ISSR. They also maintain an ancestry database to assist in calculating health and temperment factors within this limited genepool. The SSDCA was dormant during part of 1997 to support the opening of a new breed club, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC). When the ISSDC stopped working with the ISSR and opened their own registry, the ISSDCr, the SSDCA reactivated and has been maintained as the breed club for the ISSR. The ISSDC and its registry closed in 2001. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after to assume its registry functions. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 with an emphasis on shared knowledge and giving more control over breeding to the individual breeder. The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) was opened in 2002 with a focus on health requirements. The ISSDC was reorganized in 2004 as a unifying breed club for the SSBA, NSBR and TSSR registries.

And please, please, please don't start yelling at each other again, just talk about what you do or don't like about the article as it is, or my ideas on the rewrite or your ideas for a rewrite -- just as long as its the article. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm no longer going to be able to condense everyone's suggestions and continue assisting in developing a history for the article. To everyone that has sent in suggestions or corrections since I posted these drafts, I apologize; please still make the changes, especially those that fixed my errors. I know many of you preferred using private email and other avenues for discussion because of the tense environment here, but it leaves me little room to defend myself since I agreed to keep those private. I have recently been accused of taking ownership of the article, plotting in private forums and intentionally causing problems; since I don't want to cause any further issues, I will be removing myself from the situation. I really enjoyed working with you and I couldn't tell you how impressed I am with the many of you who took the time to learn about things here and help work on the article despite the problems. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, I know you want the history section to sing, so to speak. I applaud your high standards. Right now, I'm not sure how realistic that is, given the passionately-held views of editors. Even though the history section is choppy with dates, I'd prefer to leave it for now, rather than try to reach agreement on the most recently proposed changes.
I'd like to see if people agree with this part of the draft, which is where we left off last week:
"In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was formed. In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive. During this time, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. The SSDCA reopened in 1998. The ISSDC closed in 2001 and reopened in 2004.
"Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until Ms.Barber opened the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) in 1991.
"In 1998 the ISSDC opened their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. In 2001, the ISSDC registry was closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed registry functions for the ISSDCr. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) in 2002. When the ISSDC reorganized in 2004, it became the unifying parent club for the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA."

Regards, S Scott 17:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

The editing should be seriously worked on, though its more important to present a neutral account than brilliant prose. While my suggestion encompasses some wording changes, its actually about adding the breed history in that is so completely lacking now. In fact, I presented just that but was asked to produce any other ideas I was working on -- I hadn't actually planned on proposing any changes to those areas at the present time, but since I was asked, I tried some rewording of that area as well. As I've mentioned, if editors feel so passionately about which dogs were used to create the breed and how they contributed to the Shilohs today, perhaps they should consider recusing themselves. If an editors particular point of view means so much to them that they cannot work in the spirit of community Wikipedia embodies, I'm not sure why they would want to be involved. As I think everyone has come to understand, there are much better forums for addressing your views -- this is an encylopedia. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed a bunch of posts. Which section has the passionate discussion about the dogs used to create the breed? And - are you referring to this editor as not working in the spirit of the Wiki community? Thank you, S Scott 06:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

If you'll refer to the breed history listed prominently above, I believe you'll see the discussion of the GSDs and some of the foundation bitches (who may or may not be the best represetatives), currently the MAW information is missing, but I'm trying to put that together along with any other lines/dogs people feel were important to the development. I'm not certain how you could have missed that, since you've been commenting on my post?
Actually I wasn't referring to any editor, I was referring to your comment "I'm not sure how realistic that is, given the passionately-held views of editors" -- editors who feel that they cannot work with others and reach consesus on the article may wish to recuse themselves. If your question about the passionate discussion was referring to my comment "if editors feel so passionately about which dogs were used to create the breed", that was also in reference to your comment. It was a bit of rhetoric. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement "As I've mentioned, if editors feel so passionately about which dogs were used to create the breed and how they contributed to the Shilohs today, perhaps they should consider recusing themselves."

I didn't miss what you proposed above: "Today four main lines are recognized, named for the bitches who were instrumental in developing the breed. Kari brought considerable intelligence and fluid movement, Ursa had a beautiful and sound body, Ria contributed the broad head and softer temperment and Sabrina added in the heavier bone structure and plush coats. Knowledge of these dominant lines along with their faults and virtues is paramount when breeding Shilohs; just as crossing these lines correctly can create sound, well formed Shilohs, crossing them incorrectly can result in hip, back or temperment problems."

Where are editors' comments that indicate feeling passionate about which dogs were used? Are they under a different heading? I haven't seen any comments about that part of your proposal, except an anonymous editor saying it was interesting and others asking for time to consider. Thank you, S Scott 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Ah, I see what you meant about another part. You interpreted my statement, "I'm not sure how realistic that is, given the passionately-held views of editors" to mean I didn't think I could work with other editors to reach consensus. Your interpretation is incorrect. Just going on history here. Knowing what it's taken to get to agreement on the version we have now, and guessing that none of the editors' opinions and feelings has changed since then, I'm doubtful that the substantial changes you've proposed would be negotiated easily or any time soon, if we decided to undertake that. S Scott 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

No, actually I'm not referring to you, as I said earlier. I don't know which editors you were referring to in your statement, however, if any editors really feel that way, it doesn't seem appropriate that they would be working on this project. Remember WP:NPOV is incredibly important. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture layout in article

There appears to be persistence by a certain editor in changing the picture layout in the article. I prefer the layout that Jareth originally had as can be seen below.

Would you be able to change it back Jareth? SandraSS 14:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The photo of Harley was added to the article on January 26th by Jareth under "Colors". Following admin's request for a "smooth-coat" photo, Elf added that photo on January 27 to "Coats" and moved Harley to "History". On January 31st, TrillHill moved Harley down on the page by adding Luke and "cluttering" "History". On January 31st, Jareth moved Lakota from "Coats" to "Size" and Harley to "Coats". On February 1, we added one photo "puppies" to "Temperament". On February 1st, TrillHill moved Luke to "Colors" and added Gunsmoke to "History". On Februray 1st, Jareth moved Harley to "Colors" and moved Laz, Luke, and Puppies to the gallery, stating the was too cluttered with photos and these could be moved back up into the body of the article if/when it was expanded. On February 1st, Jareth changed captions for photos of Puppies, Laz, and Luke. On February 1st, Jareth expanded article and moved Laz to "Size". On February 2, Jareth added City Bricks Shadrack to "Temperament". On February 3, TrillHill added the SAR Redwood Pack to "Working Dogs" and Meg to "Movement and Gait". Since the article was now expanded and numerous new photos were being added, On February 3rd, we moved our photos, Puppies to "Variant Colors" and Harley to "Appearance". On February 5th M.Bush added photo of Warrior to "Coats" next to Lakota, cluttering section. On Februrary 6th, Jareth moved Warrior to "Gallery", commenting "don't pile". On February 8th, Jareth moved Lakota from "Coats" to "Colors", moved Harley from "Appearance" to "Coats", moved Shadrack from "Temperament" to "Health", moved Puppies from "Colors" to "Gallery" to then add photos of First Child w/Shiloh to "Temperament", then moved that again to "Working" next to "SAR Redwood Pack" then added a Second Small Child w/Dog to "Temperament".
I would agree there have been numerous edits and additions to the photos in the article by some editors. As fellow authors of this article, the 3 photos submitted by the ISSDC (through me) for placement in the article, however, have never involved the removal/displacement/editing of any of the 10 photos added by editors representing the SSDCA, nor have they been placed in such a way which clutters any section. On February 3rd, I had requested that the same courtesy be extended to our photos from other editors choosing to add/move photos. Obviously, this was not to be and some editors have continued to add/move photos at will.
Yesterday, it appeared that the smooth-coated dog (Lakota), who was originally added because of a request from an admin for a rep for "Coats", was not appropriate for "Colors", so he was moved back to "Coat". Since the Puppies photo shows a good representation of Shiloh "Colors" (the one photo showing the white Shiloh), it was moved there and the photo of Harley was moved from there to "Appearance", which had been expanded and allowed for this.
Again, no photos submitted by other editors were moved or removed or otherwise touched in any way. Believe it or not, there are other editors on this page who are well within their Wiki rights to contribute to the authorship/contents of this article (such as having a few photo contributions they have submitted also represented without constant editing) particularly when these contributions do nothing to take away from the contributions of other editors, do not violate Wiki policy, and which enhance the article as a whole. We are all equal authors for this article and I think edits made to other contributors actions should only be undertaken if they involve violations of Wiki policy or a consensus for change. Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 02-8-2006 16:22 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who moved what where at which time or who "owns" which picture (because NOONE owns the pictures or the article for that matter). There's no reason to continue to clutter up the article with pictures. There's no reason to force more and more pictures up in the top section and keep moving them around -- and that goes for everyone involved in doing it. I'm honestly starting to look forward to the possibility of an RfAR as a way to end this absurdity. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

With no disrespect intended, can you clarify to whom this is being directed?
In review of the article page history, the majority of all additional pictures, and the majority of picture movement has been done by one editor. In the past 6 days there have been 4 new pictures added, and multiple re-arrangments made. I have to agree, the forcing of more and more new picures and the constant movement of them is cluttering the article. Miles D made one movement today with reference to getting pictures in better shape. Is it not allowed for editors to participate in the placement of pictures they have supplied when is doesn't involve removal or encroachement of other editors photos and they feel it betters the article? ShenandoahShilohs 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to force more and more pictures up in the top section and keep moving them around -- and that goes for everyone involved in doing it.

Exactly my point. As an unbiased Wiki editor added the recent new pictures and placed them, and the existing pictures where she thought best for the article, I think that should be respected and left alone. For whatever reason, this was not acceptable and the picture layout was changed yet again. I still think that Jareth's placement of the pictures looks the best as can be seen in this version. SandraSS 17:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree MaShiloh 13:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"There's no reason to force more and more pictures up in the top section and keep moving them around...."
Exactly my point also. So, my question is, is this is the case, why have more and more photos been added? Who is forcing them? We didn't add or force them. But the photos we have submitted have been constantly personally attacked, vandalised and edited as these additions have been accomodated.
There was only one other photo ("Adam" in the "breed box) in the article when Harley and the smooth-coated dog (per and by admin's request) were added. Other than the SSDCA's secretary's next addition of Luke and our one addition of "Puppies", all the other 8 SSDCA submitted photos have been added since then. If this is a problem for some editors, why do they continue to add more? I'm really sorry, but I guess I just don't understand if some editors are complaining about edits they are making or supporting, why they then generically address, or refer to us (who have not done so), as if we have contributed to this problem.

Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 02-8-2006 18:41 (UTC)

The photos I added were *not* to the top section, they were to illustrate the temperment and working sections. Please do not misrepresent my edits in such a manner. I have *never* attacked or vandalized a single portion of this article and I don't appreciate that attack either. Who submits photos has absolutely no bearing on their inclusion -- in fact, I uploaded quite a number of those that were provided after my request to illustrate certain breed traits; it would be helpful if you could attempt to work without feeling that you need to attribute actions to one side of the dispute or another. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think the pictures look the best the way they are right now although the picture of the flying trot is inaccurate as the dog in the picture clearly has one paw on the ground. WindsongKennels 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If you really must nitpick over the paw, feel free to provide a picture without that flaw. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not mean to "nitpick." But I think if a picture is to illustrate a "perfect flying trot" it should be a perfect flying trot. I had one from '94 Homecoming, but can't find it. I'll make it a personal project to get one for future use. For now, if a flawed picture must be used, then so be it.WindsongKennels 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"I'd like for us to assume good faith with this poster (WP:AGF[8]). It would appear he/she may know something about Shiloh Shepherds and canine movement and may have something positive to contribute to the article (i.e. "Movement and Gait" section). I'd like this poster to elaborate a little on the definition of a "flying trot" for us, since it is mentioned in the article and I don't understand what it entails. I appreciate his/her attempt to contribute commentary which seeks to ensure the accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability of the article and his/her further contributions are welcomed and encouraged. Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 02-8-2006 20:15 (UTC)
Here are two references to the Flying Trot
The great fascination with the flying trot come about because of what we call the "period of suspension." During the flying trot the whole dog is clear of the ground each time the right foreleg and the left hindleg are thrust forward while the opposite legs leave their ground-points of departure behind. On the next step when left and right legs alternate position, the dog again leaves the ground. "The Total German Shepherd Dog" by Fred Lanting
Flying Trot- fast gait in which all four feet are simultaneously off the ground. "Dictionary of Canine Terms" by Frank Jackson
WindsongKennels 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently my short post earlier wasn't clear enough. From the picture the dog does appear to be in full trot, however, it may not have been caught at that exact millisecond where all four legs are clearly off the ground. Its actually a difficult picture to get given the short period of time involved, though I've seen some wonderful shots by professional photographers with high end cameras. If someone has a better picture they're welcome to add it, but I have a hard time with the suggestion that this is not a picture of the movement described. And Miles, you have absolutely no leg to stand on in attempting to call *me* to task about neutrality -- I would appreciate it if you would refrain from further attacks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed the attack that Miles made on Jareth. I didn't see it in the history page either. I also didn't see anyone called to task on neutrality. Maybe everyone needs to take a break from this article. Lock it up and then come back in a week with fresh minds. I personally like the article the way it is now. No need to keep expending it. NobleAcres 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement of dispute

Since its been suggested before and is obviously a large part of everything going on, it seems important that a statement of the dispute be added. "As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries." -- While it acknowledges the difference of opinion, it give no information as to what it might be and needs to be clarified. From what I've gathered, the dispute is essentially that the breed founder and the associated club and registry feel that they should be the only ones using the Shiloh name and state that the other registries allow outcrosses that are diluting the breed and may be producing dogs that do not meet the standards. The other registries positions should probably be broken out by registry and club unless each one has the same position. The NSBR believes that breeders should have more control over their breedings and that information should be shared more freely. The TSSR states that they were formed to raise the standards for health testing. The SSBA doesn't appear to have a mission statement or something similar available at this time. The ISSDC states that it exists to avoid the nasty political conflicts, unify registries and believes the SSDCA is controlled by one person's ego (I assume this is a reference to the breed founder).

If that appears to be a clear statement of the positions involved in the dispute, we should write it up and its probably makes sense to leave it at the end of the history section. If you feel this is not a clear statement of the dispute, please provide a reference to support your changes; I have used each organizations official website as a basis. If anyone has suggestions on how this could be worded, please feel free to suggest them :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel we need a clear statement of the disputes on the article itself. It seems to me that it's only going to stir things up some more. My suggestion would be to leave your clarification part out entirely. Just the sentence that there are significant differences is sufficient. NobleAcres 15:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its policy: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy." .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

As per the page on accuracy disputes "If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate." Please list any remaining facts in the article you currently feel are inaccurate since those need to be resolved as soon as possible. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you lay out the entire history draft that you're proposing? Seeing your proposal in one place will help the editors identify any facts under dispute, including the statement of dispute itself.
In the links and references, editors from the ISSDC registries strenuously object to the reference to Dr. Padgett's comments being included. The data on which they were based is unverifiable, and the format and wording of the reference itself are misleading in the extreme. Thank you, S Scott 06:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott
Proposals or possible future edits have nothing to do with the disputed tag and are not a reason to continue to list the article as disputed. There was considerable disagreement on your assertion that Dr. Padgett's data is unverifiable; its especially dubious that this dispute continues since all parties have agreed that the common health issues in the article as a result of this reference are correct. The reference as written indicates that the information in the article was based off his report and not any updates by the GTF which were so thoroughly objected to. Allowing your current dislike of the group who initiated the work by Dr. Padgett color your opinion of his methods and data is incredibly distasteful and unfair to a gentleman with an impeccable reputation. I urge you to try to seperate his work from your current dispute. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Asking that the reference about Dr. Padgett's comments on unverifiable data and original research be removed does not equate to questioning his reputation. If the shoe were on the other foot, I would be objecting as strongly to the ISSDC registries including such information. It does not meet the standards typically imposed on references for publications.

Aside from that, I object to your referring to my position as "incredibly distasteful and unfair." Because you differ with an editor is no reason for you to use negative labels about that editor. In the future, please refrain from speaking to editors in this fashion. S Scott 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Please review the policies you're citing; original research and verifiability; they do not support your position. Dr. Padgett is a well known, 3rd-party, respected scientist -- to classify that as original research seems, well, odd. Please do not call me to task for pointing out the bias you are refusing to acknowledge. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Jareth is correct. The "Original research" policy prohibits placing into articles original research conducted by editors. It does not ban published research by other individuals. The "Verifiability" policy requires that assertions are verifiably sourced, not that the underlying data is verifiable by ordinary means. Thus, a study in "Nature" may constitute new research, and the data in it may be unverifiable by those without a laboratory, but citing the study would not violate either policy. -Will Beback 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Please help me understand. Please know I'm trying to hold true to Wiki policies. From everything that's been said by ISSR editors in this discussion, the comments of Dr. Padgett are not published. (ISSR editors say that there is a video tape of his oral presentation, and I believe them.)
Additionally, Dr. Padgett's comments were not based on research by individual(s) other than the editors. The ISSR solicited health surveys from owners of Shilohs in its registry and outside it. The surveys were the owners' self reports about health conditions of their dogs. There was no independent verification, such as a vet's statement of diagnosed health conditions.
ISSR editors said here that respondents were instructed to mail their completed surveys to one of two people - the person in TX who maintains the ISSR database on its dogs, and an ISSR member who lives in the Northeast.
Next, an ISSR person(s) tabulated the results of the surveys. At this point, the results were given to Dr. Padgett, and he analyzed the results and commented on those. Only a very few in the ISSR have seen the raw data, and ISSR editors have stated here that the raw data will not be made available for verification.
The reference link in the article, "Padgett, George A., DVM. (2002).Genetic Diseases and Estimated Carrier Frequency of the Shiloh Shepherd - accessed January 2006," takes the reader to a page on the ISSR Website that lists Shiloh health conditions and their incidence, purportedly based on the health survey. At the bottom of the page are two notes: "To learn more about the methodology used on our health survey, as well as the terminology used here in this webpage, please read "Control of Canine Genetic Diseases" by Dr. George A. Padgett DVM."
"We owe a special debt of thanks to Dr. Padgett for working with Tina Barber and the ISSR registered Shiloh Shepherd breeders, and for the seminar at Homecoming 2001 where he presented his findings from the results of the Shiloh Shepherd Health Survey 2000."
That's the extent of the mentions of Dr. Padgett. I hope you can understand my confusion, and I welcome your perspective. S Scott 05:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott
Here is Wikipedia:verifiability:
  • Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
"Published" does not mean speeches or videos of speeches, but it does mean books, articles in periodicals, etc. In practice, problems of verifiability and NPOV are often best handled by simply reporting all points of view. If we have a bunch of sources which say the same things then we can simply assert it - "dogs have four legs". If there is an ideosyncratic, yet still notable, assertion then we need to give the speaker credit. "Dr. Smith, of the Canine Institute, has concluded from his research that dogs speak four languages." To which we might add (if truly necessary) "Sourced critics have replied that Smith used an improper method of counting barks." Regarding Padgett's research, if everyone agrees that he did the research and published it then we can report it, along with summaries of published rebuttals. Every notable and verifiable point of view should be reflected.
By the way, everybody, the article is looking great. Thanks for all the nice pictures. -Will Beback 09:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Tell me if I'm simply not defining terms the same way Wiki does.
As I understand Wiki criteria, Dr. Padgett did not do the research or publish his findings. His comments on his findings were videotaped. Dr. Padgett crunched numbers that were provided to him by an organization that had a vested interest in the outcome, as would any organization in a similar situation.
The ISSR health survey results indicate, for example, an 11% incidence of hip dysplasia in Shilohs, while OFA, an organization that has a public database on reports of hip x-rays read by vets certified to do this, reports an incidence of about 22%.
An example would be that I asked you, a noted expert on the color spectrum, to do a summary of the colors of paint in cans that people in the neighborhood have in their houses and where they fall on the color spectrum. People have brought their paint to my garage or to Rhonda's garage next door, but more than 80% don’t participate.
After we've got the cans, Rhonda and I move them to my garage and tabulate them. I give you a list of 6 different shades of green, 4 of purple, 5 of yellow, etc. If it turns out that we have fewer shades of blue than other neighborhoods, the neighborhood association will give us the most money for our 3-day annual party, and other neighborhoods will get less. Last year, the lowest number of blue was 7.
You take my list and analyze the numbers and come over to my house and tell my friends and me what you found. We videotape your remarks. We're interested to know where our colors fall on the spectrum, and we're thrilled that there are only 3 shades of blue.
You don't publish your findings because the methodology doesn't meet professional standards: Our neighborhood had a vested interest in the results; most people didn’t participate, people didn't bring their paint cans to a locked room in your lab; and you and your associates didn't count them and analyze the results.
I won't let you or anyone else in my garage to double check my list. However, I can now go to the neighborhood association and say that you, the Color Spectrum Expert, said we had only 3 shades of blue.
Is my brain just not wrapping around this in the Wiki way of thinking? Just let me know. Thank you, and thank you for the compliment on the article. S Scott 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Like it or not, here it is!!!

What a shame that this Wikipedia article has continued on a path of worthless war that has no end and, seemingly, no possibility of letting up. I came here a long time ago to take part in a forum with editors and Wikipedia administrators, expecting professionalism and integrity. Instead it has been an open stage for mud slinging, backstabbing, hatred, open prejudices, and even worse, doubled sided warriors that fuel both sides in a thirstful quest for fanning the flames for battle. I have read twisted truths that claim to be fact, and facts that are lost to “revised truths”, and still I see no improvement on the intended goal of writing for an article of consensus. Instead it is a wasteland of edits where proposals of change now come from a streamlined group of privileged “clicks” written by behind the scenes revenge warriors. It is an open, public display of disputes and literary face slapping. It has become a waste of mind, energy and spirit. It has fallen into a well of diseased character, chipping away at each other to see “who can crush who” and who can come out “victorious”, squashing the “enemy”. SO, for starters, I am going to proclaim loudly and proudly, I am quitting this useless quest for consensus. I have watched as degradation in writing takes place and where name calling such as splinters, puppy millers, and thieves has become accepted usage when referring to participating editors. It is harmful to watch people become the allowed victims of such insult. To continue in this filth would only speak volumes about my own character. So by choice.... I leave to rise up and out of this mire. I leave to go and spend my energies in more positive life experiences. I leave looking to embrace an attitude of “Paying it forward” and not warring in the attitude of “Getting Back”. Wikipedia, in my mind, has now become a forum for insane feeding of contradictions. So, my parting advice: Life is short; choose well where you spend your energies and shine your light, because both, invariably, becomes the pathway for others to follow. Where is your pathway going? iamgateway 01:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I empathize Iamgateways position. It's disheartening that an editor such as Iamgateway, that was awarded the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstorm just a week ago is pushed to the point of disgust towards the article.
I harbour no ill feelings to any of the editors here. There are differences of opinion on many of the subjects that have been covered here, by that's where it ends. Everyone is doing what they think is best for the article, and in the end, for the breed.
It is felt though that there are those that are trying to stoke a fire rather than calm it.
Hopefully, through the RfArb some closure will be brought to this before all the contributing editors (on both sides of the fence) that have sincerely tried to follow Wiki guideline, heed to instructions provided on User's talk pages, and worked to make this article in line with Wikipedia policy fall to into the realm of apathy.
I'll let the RfArb determine how this article is to be completed and look forward to reading the "finished" product. Gwyllgi 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To Jareth - Moderator?? Breed Recognition & other issues regarding this "listing"

I guess in reading all this ... the disputes & so on.. ARBA ( American Rare Breed Association) recognized this breed in 1990- 1991, as has been stated. SO now we have all the disputes about this & that.... my question would be ( this goes back to the beginning of all of this on the Wiki site listing of the Shilohs as an original article)....

When the Shilohs were recognized by ARBA.... were the pedigrees the breed founder provided to ARBA ( ARBA as per my understanding requires 3 FULL generations of provable parentage to even recognize a breed in the 1st place) - Im not sure infact that what was provided to them ( nor are many with in the existing Shiloh Community) are accurate pedigrees or credible? She - Ms. Barber , talks about this phenominal TCCP database she has as far as pedigree/health testing goes, BUT as has been stated.. NONE of it has ever been published to date & unfortunately as well.... the "keeper" of that database is now deseaced - <name removed>.

She does no DNA now that anyone is aware of currently ( although used to require it per the original ISSR reg rules - Breeding quality or pet - I can provide previous links to substanciate this, I dont feel the need  however because everyone posting here is aware of this FACT!), & since the original "keeper" of the Shiloh  DNA database is defunct - Stormont Labs - everyone ( the SSBA, TSSR & NSBR)  had to re-submit their DNA to UCDavis for new verification of the lineage they have.  The "splinter" registeries as the BF calls them, were not allowed any access to  any of the previous DNA profiles to be transfered by Stormont - as thier "profiles" of matching & storage were somehow different???? and as well the ISSR has never allowed info to be shared on DNA profiles anyway.   would like to know at what point EXACLY, the ISSR began submitting DNA to Stormont Labs to prove parentage.. & infact IF there are even 3 generations that can actually be proven ( minimally) to establish this breed in the 1st place.  Im sure that Stormonts records could be summonsed to a court hearing to determine such, weather they are still in business or not.  Because "documents" were provided to ARBA doesnt PROVE there is a breed.   UKC requires 6 generations of a breed - un-interrupted by an outcross ( such as CJ's Bullet for example) to establish a breed.  I realize that every "show" organization may have a different criteria for breed recognition, as do most large scale respectable "registries".  I think it is important to establish first Jareth  that given  all that has been posted here.. & alot of FACTS  (LOL) have apparently  been.  You may want to contact the original "recognizing"  organization with this information & ask them?? IS THERE EVEN A BREED??   THE NSBR has CJ's Bullet, who is also  an AKC GSD, not a big issue, except for all the people talking about health testing here.  He has none, except fot hips... But he went to bed one night as an AKC recognized GSD & woke up the next morning with NSBR registered FULL SHiloh Shepherd registration papers ( Im sure <name removed> can change that on her home computer according on what she needs to prove  for the "moment") But BULLET is still listed on Selahs's  GSD's site as a GSD owned by Cj's Kennels. SO  you gonna tell me that a dog is BOTH a FULL Shiloh & as well an AKC reg GSD??  I have a copy of his AKC registration,  how would AKC feel about Bullet today???  I got a gut feeling not  real happy. Tina the breed founder ( ISSR Shilohs) has done the same thing.. except there is a "GAP" in her lineage which I believe puts an end even to the 3G uninterrupted lineage even ARBA sets in place Jareth.  That would be a breeding of a dog named Sampsoon WOO ( a KNOWN wolf dog - which ARBA does NOT  accept or recognize ( as a breed let alone an outcross for a breed) but Tinas daughter has been photographed showing & his pedigree has been circulating for years - guess all these posterd forgot to mention all these issues) & Super Sweet Sabrina -  a female out of  - YEP you ( may have) geussed it!!! Bullets breeder - Selah Kennels   LOL - Selah as far as I am aware does NOT do DNA - so her lineage would as well be hard to prove.  

Jareth, they can all prove what they are producing NOW... they can prove what was produced when we all used Stormont.. Tina cant PROVE what was produced ( & if she can I would encourage that you request she provide documentation here to support it)prior to ARBA recognizing this breed or perhaps even when they agreed to for that matter. You can ALL scream even AKC didnt require DNA until aprox 1997-98 ( & even I personally & always have found AKC DNA progam an insult to my intelligence) & was originally only required on the stud, im not sure " who shook the bed & woke them up that you need it on both the stud & bitch to prove anything, but originally it was only required on the stud, that produced 3 or more litters in a year or 9 or more in a lifetime - why bother reuqiring anything - im sure you are understaning my direction Jareth.

SO - is there really a breed?? ( I have personally pd nearly 6K for 4 dogs I have long since retired - to discover there may not even be an established breed afterall originally) in fact all this is about?? I would encourage you to ck into some of this Jareth. Now mind you, I know what is going to transpire as a result of my post LOL, all of the other registries are gonna say hmmmmmmm can we prove atleast 3 uninterrupted generations??? Trouble is they cant either , they have all had OTX litters, except maybe the orig ISSDC ( which 'fermented' into the SSBA), but their "foundation lineage" is of the original split from the ISSR ( <name removed> ) which as well, likely is not provable lineage either LOL round & round (they) go. Tina if you can prove it FEEL FREE!!! POST IT.. post the supporting docs HERE to prove what got the Shilohs accepted by ARBA.. I think that would be valuable information to establish " THE BREED" cause if there ever was one, I personally SURE dont believe their is one now!!! Tina sure cant prove there is. There is DNA on Bullet offspring, but... "who" is bullet?? is he a Shiloh? or is he a GSD??

<removed personal attack>

Regards Jareth, Lisa Trendler

Unfortunately, we do need proof. Please see the policies on verifiability and citing sources. If the breed is not recognized by ARBA or some other claims you mention are published and you can provide the source for that information, the article can be changed to reflect that. If this is personal knowledge and you'd be asking editors to view documents and come to their own conclusions, we cannot use the information per the no original research policy. Thanks for the comments. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the article?

When I go to the article page - not the discussion page, but the article itself, this is what I get:

Shiloh Shepherd Dog From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

Start the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article or add a request for it. Search for Shiloh Shepherd Dog in other articles. Look for Shiloh Shepherd Dog in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project. Look for Shiloh Shepherd Dog in the Commons, our repository for free images, music, sound, and video. Look for pages within Wikipedia linking to this article.

Corinne Corfil 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try again in a while. I have no problem displaying the article itself. However, I have seen a similar glitch recently with a different page. I think it is a system glitch. Robert McClenon 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There's been a few posts elsewhere about this same problem; apparently the database is responding slowly causing pages to show up as if they didn't exist. If you refresh that seems to fix the problems most of the time -- some people have reported having to clear their temporary internet files before the page came back. Sorry :( .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Temporary ban from Shiloh Shepherd Dog

This temporary injunction has been passed in the Shiloh arbitration:

1) Until the resolution of this case, Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) and ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs) are banned from Shiloh Shepherd Dog.

This injunction has received the requisite four net support votes. If breached, it can be enforced by a short block. The ban does not apply to edits on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog.

Enacted on 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


The article has been unprotected. Any reasonable edits may be made by those not named in the temporary injunction. Controversial edits should probably be avoided for the duration of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The disputed tag that wouldn't die

I was going to ask if anyone still objected to the removal of the disputed tag, however, after looking through the history and the talk page archives again, it appears since that the disputed section (History) reached consensus, the tag is no longer necessary. If anyone has any further factual concerns about the article, please discuss it here. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the final version of the article or can edits continue to be made? SandraSS 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are always available to edit, there are no "finished" versions. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture of human says Dog in caption

In the Gallary section, there is a picture of a human with lettering "STOP LUKE LISTEN".. called Luke.jpg... Obviously not a dog...

But the caption underneath says it is a dog. Is this some kind of joke?

Could someone fix this please?

Fixed before I even saw the talk page. It works now :-) Captainktainer * Talk 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Real Flying Trot

Hey Jareth, we finally found a picture of a Shiloh in a true flying trot. Would you please let me know what we have to do to post it? I could email it to you if you want to post it. Thanks WindsongKennels 19:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You should first keep in mind that pictures must be justifiable under American fair use guidelines and use one of the tags here or a free content license of some kind. Free content licenses are vastly preferred; pictures with weak fair use justifications and pictures without source information or clear license status will be deleted. Please see our image use policy for further details.
To upload a picture:
  1. Login
  2. Click on "upload file" in the sidebar (Special:Upload)
  3. Select the file from your computer that you want to upload
  4. Select a descriptive name for the image
  5. Select the appropriate license for the file (See Image tagging for a full list)
  6. After the image is uploaded, check to make sure it came across correctly and you have no errors or warnings on the final page.
To add the picture to a page:
  1. Edit the page you want the image to appear on, and include in the place you want the image to appear:
[[Image:(Filename you chose in step 4).(extension of file, case sensitive)|thumb|Caption text]]
  1. Save the page with an edit summary that describes what you did (eg. "added image")
You might also find our extended information on using images helpful. Shell babelfish 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot believe how bad this article is.

Look, I'm not trying to start a fight...but this is one of the most poorly written and most biased articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. I really cannot believe that this is tolerated...I'm not going to dredge through so many threads of "Dog Show" rhetoric but here's a few things I cannot understand:

1. The Shiloh Shepherd was developed to preserve the original qualities found in the German Shepherd Dog (GSD) of the past. They are bred to be the perfect family companion and protector; are highly intelligent and self-confident and possess no limitations in their ability and willingness to perform any job.

Are you kidding? Have any of you actually seen a modern flavor of an original German Shepherd? Weighs about half the size (modern FCI median weight for males: 77 pounds [9]) of your designer pooch. The German Shepherd Dog was never envisioned to be this big, and its skeletal structure cannot support it in the activities it was designed to do. It is, simply put, dangerous to put this size of dog through the demands of Ringsport, SAR, police or military service, or any other "working" environment.

2. They were developed to be gentle and loving, able to work with animals and children while still possessing an excellent drive. With proper socialization they adapt easily to many environments and are stable no matter the situation. Breeders strive for a courageous yet manageable temperament. Any form of extreme aggression or shyness is severely penalized per the breed standard. Their self-confidence and superior intelligence leads them to excel at many activities such as obedience, schutzhund, tracking and others. They are frequent recipients of the AKCs "Canine Good Citizen" Award and have also earned the Companion Dog title, the Companion Dog Excellent title, the Utility Dog title and been certified as Reading Education Assistance Dogs.

Shilohs do NOT excel at Schutzhund or any other protection sport. Please provide examples of titled animals and how that would constitute "excelling" at them. And expanding on what we mean by "excellent drive" would be great. Relative to a GSD from working european lines? A Malinois? A Dutch Shepherd? Or maybe a Maltese? That is great that they get AKC titles, but so do Pomeranians.

What drive are you talking about? Prey drive? Fight drive? Civil drive? Defensive drives? Whether you believe in all these things or not you should articulate what on earth you are talking about. "Drive" in a Fila Brasilero is a very different thing than "drive" in a Dutch Shepherd.

I have no interest in getting caught up in this mess, but this page is laughably bad. Show me a few generations of Shilohs with consistent French Ring or KNPV titles or even military/police service and I'll change my opinion...but don't make this designer doggie into something it's not. I have no doubt it's a nice doggie but it has NOTHING to do with the original intentions of von Stephanitz. My guess is this page is by Shiloh breeders for Shiloh breeders but you all are doing a grave disservice to anyone actually trying to learn about working animals.

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure Shilohs are great pets. But don't make up stuff to legitimize the breed by equating it with real working dogs with 100 years of selective breeding (for working application, I should add) behind them.

This article was edited for a long period of time by people very closely involved in the breeding of Shilohs. The concerns you have are the reasons that Wikipedia suggests people so close to a subject don't edit. I believe those people have moved on and you are more than welcome to make improvements to the article.
Very little source information is available for the Shiloh outside of the websites and publications of the registries and clubs devoted to the breed. I believe a lot of the information on working dogs and the like came from the ISSDC website. I, for one would be very interested in ideas you have for improving the article. After being involved in a lengthy dispute over the content and staring at the poor thing for months I haven't had the will to have a go at fixing it myself. Shell babelfish 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Again, I was just taken aback by how much bias and flat-out misrepresentation there is here. This is a boutique dog and has absolutely nothing in common with a true working breed, other than basic, though distorted, appearance. I'm not learned enough on Shilohs to rewrite the article...but whoa...this is just not an accurate portrayal of what these dogs are. Regardless of what their owners may believe, these are not considered legitimate working breeds in any way. Their size, their nerves, and their (lack of) drives preclude them from it. This does not make them bad dogs or bad pets.
In the above paragraph you state that this is "flat-out misrepresentation of the breed". You also state that "this is just not an accurate portrayal of what these dogs are" and you state "though I will be the first to admit that I think Shilohs are a bad instance of good intentions". However, you also state that "I'm not learned enough on Shilohs to rewrite the article". Well, to me, you certainly seem to be full of enough opinions to think you can re-write the article about a breed which you yourself said that you know nothing about. Perhaps your "opinions" of Shilohs would differ if you had actually seen one, met one or otherwise had the opportunity to observe one in the flesh. Shilohs do have herding titles, search & rescue creds, agility titles, obedience titles, & therapy dog certs. So, I guess your definition of "working dog" only includes "Schutzhund and other protection sports", but perhaps the rest of the world sees the definition a little differently. --Dec 22, 2006 9:13
Hah, nothing like an unsigned, shaky retort by a designer dog enthusiast to help me realize I'm not offbase here. What are "search and rescue creds," anyways? Does that mean some nut with a police scanner and a Shiloh shows up to mess up evidence at crime scenes? What's funny to me is that your defense...they make good therapy dogs, they can do basically true of any breed. My point is that you all are making this dog out to be something that it's not. Assigning superlatives where none are merited. And offering no proof, other than some sideways comment that some Shilohs can be petted in hospital settings. My definition of a working dog extends well beyond Schutzhund...and that is not indicative of anything, in my mind, other than good ob and a bit of drive, nothing special...and includes some of the applications youv'e described. What I'm saying, and what I maintain, is that this is an oversized experiment that has yet to distinguish itself as anything other than an eccentric controversy in exotic breed organizations. And calling it anything other than that is an insult to legitimate, proven working lines.

"What are "search and rescue creds," anyways? Does that mean some nut with a police scanner and a Shiloh shows up to mess up evidence at crime scenes?" HMMMMMM....ever hear of a Shiloh named Gandalf? You may have heard of him...he found the missing Boy Scout in NC awhile back. First time on a search too. Crawl out of your cave & turn the national news on. 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would love to be wrong, I'd love to hear a legitimate reason for outsizing Shepherds, I have yet to hear one. Even better, show me a few generations of working and ob titles, SAR certifications and successes, whatever you got.--Woody Taylor 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no agenda here, though I will be the first to admit that I think Shilohs are a bad instance of good intentions, much like American Bulldogs and Pugs. I love dogs. I'm just saying that this article appears to be written only by people who want to sell Shiloh Shepherds. And that is not cool, neither for Wikipedia nor particularly for any prospective owner who is vetting this breed as a potential working dog.--Woody Taylor 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
So anyways, I'll make some basic changes...please do not view them as an attack on your breed...but these superlatives have got to go. Even cocky GSDs owners like me have to settle for admitting our breed is second-best at everything. ;-)--Woody Taylor 22:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Shiloh Shepherd is not a GSD although they originated from GSD stock. From what I can tell, they are not meant to be hard core working dogs. First and foremost they are to be intelligent, gentle, family companions. If they possess the ability to do other jobs, then that is great, but that is not the intent of the breed IMO. They are not recognized by any major kennel club, so I don't see how they can be put into any particular category. They are large in size as that is what the Breed Founder wanted when she started her breeding program. Gremlyn 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 100% of everything you're saying. The breed basically appears to be an attempt by the originator to get back to an idealized dog she had in her childhood. It's a free country. I just feel it inappropriate to ascribe all these superlatives to it, particularly with regard to its working capabilities. "Gentle family companions" and "real working animals" are often mutually exclusive, particularly from the standpoint of a breed standard. It's a big, pretty, apparently friendly dog. The article should reflect that. I think you and I are on the same page? ;-) And thanks for the comments...all this nonsense about who recognizes what SS where in what registry had hidden the fact that this article, at its core, was suggesting this dog had qualities it simply doesn't [re: to working capability and temperament]. I have never seen or worked a Shiloh on a training field but the people I know who have describe them as generally nervy, fearful, and hesitant in stressful environments relative to classic working breeds. That is true of 99% of the breeds out there, so it's not necessarily a derogatory statement.-- 14:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Woody. I am pretty sure I "get" your point about Shiloh Shepherds not fitting your definition of "working dog". That is completely true- they aren't selected on the basis of their working ability- their grip or intensity, etc.

No respectable Shiloh Shepherd breeder would give a puppy to someone who wanted to make into the high levels of Schutzhund- that isn't what the breed is about. Those individuals need a dog bred for that kind of work.

My point is this: "working dog" has differrent connotations for differrent people. I like competitive obedience, and my Shiloh has what I call a "great working attitude"- I'm not by any means trying to say my dog belongs on a police force. I'm saying my dog enjoys her training, has a great attitude, learns quickly and does what I ask of her.

So, while it may irritate the "hard core" people out there, the definition of "working dog" as being one bred to to work on a police force just is not the mainstream definition. The general definition of a working dog is one who performs its job. You correctly point out that many breeds, such as the Papillon, can make great working dogs.

I don't mind changing the rhetoric of the article to reflect that Shilohs can compete in agility, herding, tracking, rally-o, and obedience, provided others are cool with that.

Shiloh Shepherds are a developing breed, not a "designer" breed as you keep saying. A designer breed has connotations of "whateva-doodles" and "miscillaneous-poo's".

There is variability in temperament in Shiloh Shepherds, as with many breeds. However, all ISSR breeding stock is selected not only on conformation, but stable, calm temperaments. Breeders strive for a balance between some of the dogs with higher drive and the couch potatoes, but all stock is subjected to a temperament test and unsound dogs (sharp/shy/gun-shy) are not allowed into the breeding program. Litter evaluations are performed and puppies are placed into the proper homes. This helps ensure, for example, that the SAR volunteer gets a Shiloh with the drive, nose, and capacity to excel at the task. One cannot take the "shepherd" out of Shiloh Shepherd. It is a versatile and intelligent breed which can indeed excel at many tasks and sports.

I'd like to invite you to join the ISSR Shiloh Shepherd forum and talk to some people who do compete with their Shilohs, in herding, rally, obedince and SAR.

Recent Changes to Article

Can something be done about the "editor" that keeps adding the phrase "or King Shepherd" to the article? A Shiloh Shepherd is not a King Shepherd. Also, I am not sure why a link to the Leonberger wiki page has been included under the "See Also" heading. Gremlyn 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whats going on here but I wanted to say how crazy this all seems. I am in the process of researching various breeds for a family pet as we have recently lost our beloved Bullmastiff. My wife has always had an affinity for German Shephards and we came across this seemingly beautiful dog (Shiloh Shepherd) and wanted to learn more about it. Unfortunately all we've been able to uncover is the undisputable fact that most of you "dog people" are friggin nuts! You have completely ruined the experience and made us incredibly fearful that if we purchase a Shiloh we may have to deal with nutjobs like all of you as we go through the process. Do the dogs on these pages a favor and shut up about breed clubs and registries. Most people just want to know if the dog is crazy and bound to bite the mess out the kids friends...thats it! Just read the discussion trail...its actually scary how nuts you all are! Rexhoundsmith (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Concern of listed "Rescue" links

These places don't seem to be genuine rescues but rather places that sell retiring breed stock and unwanted puppies. That's not Rescue work - that's a commerical venture. Wikipedia doesn't permit links to commercial ventures. One dog for "rehoming" is being offered at $1000 US. Surely it doesn't cost that much to spay a dog in need of a home. They appear to be for-profit groups unloading retired animals and pups that don't meet the needs of breeders. if they must be linked to, and I don't see why they should given the asking fees which are way out of line with other Breed rescues, they need to be recategorized as "Rehoming organizations for retiring breed stock " Any group can call itself a rescue and get a non-profit desigantion, but not all groups doing that are truly rescuing dogsLiPollis 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will try again. Since "Someguy" keeps erasing my question here. Where did you read that ISSDC charges for rescues & rehomes? 07:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It was on their pages when I added the comments - have they since removed them? If so, you can remove the remark of the charges but these are re-homing of retired breed stock and not "rescues" in the accepted sense of the word. I have never seen other breeders call the sale of retired breeders "rescues". Most breed rescues do require a donation but they are set up as non-profits. They don't set up a schedule of fees and only rehome breedstock. I just checked and right now, you can rescue one female for a mere $1000! Very few breed rescues demand more than costs for an adoption donation. LiPollis 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LiPollis- again I am only refering to the ISSDC rescue & rehome program. I have no idea how the other "breed rescue & rehome" program works. Perhaps they are charging $1000 for rehomes, but the ISSDC is not. 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a moot point now since the only organization still tagged and confirmed as charging those kinds of fees is the Shilo "Rescue" network. There is not currently any mention I could find of the fee schedule for adoption on the ISSDC pages. Sorry for the misunderstanding.LiPollis 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite alright. I thank you for re-checking. Have a very good evening71.66.124.191 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)