Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dogs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

health section on mongrels should be altered[edit]

altered to remove the line on hybrid vigor.

i have tried to edit it and was told i was wrong and sent to a part of wiki that was incorrect so now i believe i am in the right place but who really knows anymore.

i gave the links to the studies and the results TWICE

This has been shown in a recent study in June 1, 2013 by the Journal of american veterinary medical association[14] Where with a large study of mutts and purebreds it was shown that mutts have no less risk than a purebred does of genetic related disorders. It was found that mutts had a higher risk of cranial cruciate ligament tears than did their purebred counterparts and that while both are equally susceptible to genetic disorders Purebreds with genetic disorders were limited to certain bloodlines with the particular disorder.[15]

Populations are particularly vulnerable when the dogs bred are closely related. Inbreeding among purebreds has exposed various genetic health problems not always readily apparent in less uniform populations. Mixed-breed dogs are more genetically diverse due to the more haphazard nature of their parents' mating. However, "haphazard" is not the same as "random" to a geneticist. The offspring of such matings might be less likely to express certain genetic disorders because there might be a decreased chance that both parents carry the same detrimental recessive alleles, but some deleterious recessives occur across many seemingly unrelated breeds, and therefore merely mixing breeds is no guarantee of genetic health. Also, when two poor specimens are bred, the offspring could inherit the worst traits of both parents. This is commonly seen in dogs from puppy mills.[16]

"June 1 Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) researchers studied the medical records of 62,750 dogs diagnosed with genetic disorders during a 15 year period.

The study, titled, Prevalence of inherited disorders among mixed-breed and purebred dogs: 27,254 cases (1995–2010), Studied prevalence of 24 genetic disorders in the population.

Ten disorders were found to be more common in purebred dogs, purebred dogs had no higher incidence than did mixed breed dogs of health concerns. Mixed breed dogs had a higher prevalence of cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) tears than did purebred dogs.

According to the researchers, the study illustrates that for most heritable diseases mixed breeds confer no greater over all health. Heritable diseases clearly run in some pure bred lines, however according to the researchers, thirteen of the 24 diseases studied were present across the entire canine population prior to breeding for specific traits, and are therefore just as likely to show up in a mixed breed dog as a purebred.

Heritable diseases can be devastating for pet owners; knowing the history of a dog's lineage may provide a buffer against some of these issues. In-breeding has certainly led some breeds to have a high incidence for some diseases, and mixes derived from that breed can suffer from the same set of issues."

List of oldest dogs[edit]

Hello All, the article List of oldest dogs falls under the WikiProject Dogs banner.

  1. Someone posted a complaint under '"Update needed to "Oldest dogs" page above regarding the list on the List page and that "someone removes the information". I went to that page.
  2. I looked through this Talk page and found some strange things have happened here in the posts above and confirm that this is not an isolated event.
  3. I looked at the List page and found some strange things happening there as well.
  4. The List page says that "The following canines' ages were authenticated via Guinness World Records."
  5. The first dog on the list is "Max". The first citation is the web homepage of GWR. A search on that page for the term oldest dog returns the page and the name Bluey. The citation does not support Max as the oldest dog. The second citation for Max is an ABC media interview with an owner who purports that she owns the world's oldest dog, claims to have sent papers to GWR, but as yet "hasn't got a reply". Nothing the owner says is verifiable, and no documents were shown on the TV interview even though the owner had the opportunity.
  6. In summary, there is nothing supporting Max being listed in the GWR and therefore on the List of oldest dogs.
  7. I have removed Max from the list.
  8. The only dog among the 17 listed that can be confirmed on the GWR website is Bluey. The other 16 have a link to the GWR home page as a "citation".
  9. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" - WP:VERIFY.
  10. It would appear from the Talk page that certain individuals across the years have been putting up certain dogs as the oldest with no citations other than the GWR homepage, and causing conflict with others who want their own dog up.
  11. An editor in 2011 asked other editors to find more appropriate citations. There appears to have been no further progress.

My view is that the article should be deleted under Wikipedia Deletion Policy WP:DELETE

Reason 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources WP:RELIABLE
Reason 7: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed WP:VERIFY

I suggest that there will be no way to get consensus on the article's talk page to do this because vested interests appear to be at play.

Do any editors have any ideas about what to do with this page, please?
(Don't be shy, the page counter tells me that this page has 105 watchers, yet there is seldom any feedback to posts.) Regards, William Harristalk • 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates[edit]

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw(talk) 01:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Molossus of Epirus a real dog breed?[edit]

I came across Molossus of Epirus, and I am unable to determine whether it merits an article. I do not see it listed in FCI Pinscher and Schnauzer, Molossoid and Swiss Mountain Dog Group or in Molosser. Molossus (dog) says that this breed is not a modern breed. And this page claims that it is listed in FCI subgroup 2.2, but the FCI page does not mention it.

The only in-line reference on the page,, does not mention this breed.

Also, the majority of the page is copy-pasted from a machine translation (use Google or Chrome) of this page.

Is anyone here interested in straightening out this situation? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95, my view is that we cannot progress this issue until a Greek-speaking Wikipedian has a look and determines its legitimacy. If the website is that of the kennel club of Greece, and that body recognizes the breed, then it is legitimate. Regards, William Harristalk • 05:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is actually a fork of Molosser. Especially considering the origin. --TKK! bark with me! 06:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that the Molosser article is only 12,000 bytes in length, I can see no reason why the info from the Molossus of Epirus article could not be merged there. Regards, William Harristalk • 04:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see my comment on the talk page there. It has a national breed standard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
If it is a recognized breed, then perhaps it might be listed on Molosser#List of Molossoid breeds. On that page, under the Reference section, Reference 2 refers to them as a proto-molosser. Regards, William Harristalk • 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This matter has been raised before, in Archive 9, under the title "Molossus Dog Not Extinct !" back in 2013. William Harristalk • 10:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Any other results from empathy studies?[edit]

The 2012 Custace & Mayer article "Empathic-like responding by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) to distress in humans: an exploratory study" cited ([1]) noted that dogs respond to stangers "pretending to cry" more readily than their humans, while the majority of the research surrounding it discussed how dogs are attuned to humans and the signals they send. Is there more research, or more information in the research cited, that might suggest the degree to which dogs can discern genuine emotion from feigned? My first reaction was to the fake crying - anecdotally, I find many dogs at the very least learn the difference...but then there's also anger and a whole ran0ge of human emotions that can be portrayed without the emotion being genuine. (Sarcasm is one example, or trying to lure out a scared puppy who's in trouble, or even just hearing these expressions being portrayed on TV.) In my experience, some dogs get it, some dogs don't, some get it quicker than others, but I've always wondered what the research might say. (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Julie Hughes

Hi Julie, thanks for your post and you might like to look further at the Dog behavior article and possibly the related Dog intelligence article. You might also use your search engine to have a look at the work of Brian Hare (Dognition) and Gregory Berns (MRI scanning). Regards, William Harristalk • 01:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)