Jump to content

Talk:Dog/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Dogs evolved at least twice

The statement about dogs having evolved twice was removed from the article in response to a criticism that it begged further explanation and development.

The statement was based on this source, the Univ. of Mich’s Museum of Zoology, which runs the Animal Diversity Web web site, which has a page on the Gray Wolf, Canis lupus, here: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/52386062/canis_lupus_001.html. Scroll down to the comments section, and you will see where it says this:

‘’“Genetic evidence suggests that gray wolves were domesticated at least twice, and perhaps as many as 5 times, by humans."’’

This reference is useful and, while not as authoritative as MSW3, is still pretty darn authoritative and used in many articles on Wikipedia.

The critique said that the statement begs development. The critique did not say it wasn’t interesting, true, well cited, or that it should be removed. The statement caused the reader to want to know more about how the dog evolved from the wolves twice: where, when, how, etc. I agree, the article should tell the article more about this. Removal of the statement, however, is not progress toward that goal. Please return it to the article so it can continue to provoke explanation until it succeeds in doing so. Chrisrus (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very thrilled by that supporting source. However, I did some googling and came up with this, apparently also seen online as Brian Hare; Michael Tomasello. "Human-like social skills in dogs?" (PDF). Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) That says, "[...] A second candidate hypothesis invokes the canid ancestry of dogs. Dogs evolved multiple times from Old World wolves [34–38],", citing the following for sources in support:
34 Vila, C. et al. (1997) Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science 276, 1687–1689
35 Savalainen, P. et al. (2002) Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science 298, 1610–1613
36 Clutton-Brock, A. (1999) A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals, Cambridge University Press
37 Parker, H. et al. (2004) Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Science 304, 1160–1164
38 Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. (2001) Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution, Scriber Press
I've only got access to online sources, and that's all I've found in a quick search. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Let's choose our very best citation(s) for a statement to the effect of "... evolved from C.lupus at least twice..." or some such, and then expand upon it. Chrisrus (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Status

Suggestion: We go through the history and find the version which was given good article status, and revert to that. Then compare it to this version. Chrisrus (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a comparison for anyone interested: [1] — anndelion (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting topic

http://www.ankc.org.au/media/scripts/doc_download.aspx?did=272 "Dogs smell out Cancer" Accessed 5 April 2011. If someone wanted to work that in somewhere. Keetanii (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Anubis to "Mythology" section

I suggest adding a link to the jackal-headed Egyptian god Anubis in the "Mythology" section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubis

There is also this very useful page of links to dogs or dog references in mythology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mythological_dogs

I would add these things myself but general user edits appear to be disabled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eux2010 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

good idea~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.79.162 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding internal links to navigation pages with lists of articles about dogs in culture. Any other such links to help users navigate our vast collection of dog-related articles would be great, but don't you think the "see also" link list might get to long to be a useful navigation tool if we start adding links to specific articles like Anubis? The better idea is to include the highest level catagory pages such as maybe Mythological dogs, where Anubis should be identified as the one with the dog's head for those who don't know it's a Jackal head or who conflate dogs and jackals. Jackals aren't dogs but it's ok even though it's not really correct but the point of navigation pages is to help people get to the article they want, not to teach. Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Two things: (1) the simplest edit would be to add the high level "Mythological Dogs" link to the "See Also" section OR the "Mythology" section. It makes extremely logical sense to link to it from this page somewhere; (2) with respect to Anubis specifically, my preference would be to mention his name but if the high level category "Mythological Dogs" is listed it is not necessary to name Anubis here. Question: who can add the "Mythological Dogs" link to this page? How can I submit a request to an editor to do this? It is a simple, minor edit and makes logical internal sense. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eux2010 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Please review my last edit. I am trying to make the category "mythological dogs" available to the reader, but don't know how. Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Flat fact vs. speculation

The dog may have been the first domesticated animal, to the extent "first domesticated animal" is a sensical statement of ordinality in the world but it certainly isn't known to be and no amount of naive misreading of genetics and other scientific facts can change that. Lycurgus (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

good point 76.66.48.62 (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's what these WP:RS say, so it's what we say. Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Following on that, re "fact" vs. what RSs say, please read the initial paragraph of WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Canis lupus familiaris vs Canis familiaris

I'd like to ask why here (and in some other articles, apparently) dogs are referred to as Canis lupus familiaris rather than Canis familiaris? While it has been established that domestic dogs are descended from the grey wolf (Canus lupus), I can't find a single scientific journal that has switched from the standard age-old designation Canis familiaris to Wikipedia's Canis lupus familiaris. So far as I can tell, Canis familiaris is used by Nature, Science, The Journal of Comparative Psychology, Animal Cognition, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Animal Behavior, Behavioral Processes, Genome Research, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, and Molecular Biology and Evolution. On the other hand, the only source provided in this article for the Canis lupus familiaris designation is a website. Shouldn't Wikipedia follow the dominant practice in the professional journals of the field? For the moment, I'll leave this as a question, since this strikes me as the sort of thing that might already have been discussed somewhere in the community. Otherwise, I'll change it to Canis familiaris in a little while. MJM74 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I had unaccountably missed the discussion of this further in the article. Whoops. I had also relied on my personal directory of downloaded papers rather than the Google Scholar search. However, there are 20,300 hits for "Canis familiaris", so if Google Scholar is relevant here, it would point in the opposite direction by 20-to-1, no? Do you (or anyone) happen to know why there are cases where a single journal switches between "Canis familiaris" and "Canis lupus familiaris", presumably at the discretion of the author? (Animal Cognition, for example, had an article in 2008 called "Is your choice my choice? The owners' effect on pet dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task", and one in 2007 called 'Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)', which, if it were an issue of the journal's official assumptions, would suggest moving to the new designation and then back to the old one.) Just to be clear, I'm genuinely asking for clarification here, since I don't know the answer myself and it would seem to be relevant to what the article uses.
That aside, the ITIS point in favor of Canis lupus familiaris seems good reason to go with that, even in the teeth of the 20-to-1 Google Scholar hit ratio. The relevant passage in the article mentions that the older term remains a common synonym, which I think strikes a very reasonable balance.
Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm genuinely curious about the journal inconsistency here, so if you (or anyone) has an answer but regards it no longer directly relevant to this article, please don't hesitate to take this to my talk page. I suspect I'm not the only one that would like to know, though. MJM74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
90% of everything is crap. This applies to pop songs, novels, product names stand-up comics and scientific articles. As far as the dog names go, there are differences in usage between countries. Abductive (reasoning) 07:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
MJM74, see
etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe most articles on Google Scholar are older than the decision to go with C. l. familiaris. Chrisrus (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Usage of C. l. familiaris is increasing, but still tiny compared to C. familiaris. The fact is that Canis familiaris is invalid, but not wrong. When one is being precise, one should use Canis lupus familiaris. Abductive (reasoning) 16:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point. So we're going with C.l.familiaris because we want to be precise. Being precise includes, however, being clear that there is more than one valid way of looking at, if it can be shown that there indeed more than one valid way of looking at the known facts. Chrisrus (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The invalid synomyms are given in the infobox. Abductive (reasoning) 06:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they are, but my point is, what is the dog, nothing more than a domesticated wolf, or is it a separate animal in it's own right? It's both, of course. When mammologists say that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, they refer to the fact that the one was domesticated from the other, and there is now and must have been for a long time ever more gray area between the two. But if other experts do sometimes refer to them as a species in their own right, they may be some other kind of expert who is referring to the fact that wolves and dogs are very different creatures indeed in many important ways. The fact that English and probably most other languages they are two separate words seems to reflect this fact, as does the fact that the article wolf isn't about dogs and is separate from this article. Normally, when you read an article about a species, you can rest assured that it covers all the subspecies, but when the article Canis lupus says things like "wolves don't adapt as well to life alongside humans as well as Coyotes" and such, that clearly isn't the case.
Taxonomy is just a necessary system of naming things. We couldn't do without it, but the objective facts behind the taxonomy is the cladistics, and good articles like this one clarify as much as is known about what branched off from what where when and how in as much detail as appropriate and not imply that one can't legitimately see things closer or more distantly. They just say something like "modern taxonomy considers X to be a particular taxon", really quickly and then go on to detail the reality behind the expedient system of nomenclature. Chrisrus (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Dogs are different from wolves in a few solid, measurable ways, but they are not a species, they are a subspecies. Poor writing abounds in the Wolf and Dog articles. Wolf has never been a WP:Good Article, and Dog had its GA status revoked. I shall read over both for improvements. Abductive (reasoning) 07:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Domestic Pig says that it's called both Sus scrofa domestica and Sus domestica. Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tail

Under the "Tail" section, there are fallacious statements to say the least. It might be better to delete it altogether than allow it to spread so much misinformation:

"In some breeds, the tail is traditionally docked to avoid injuries (especially for hunting dogs).[114]"

While that may have been the case historically, nowadays canine tails are docked almost entirely for cosmetic reasons, against veterinary medical advice. The cited reference [114] is a single page, non-peer reviewed statement which seeks to promote the interests of competitive and commercial breeding interests.

"In some breeds, puppies can be born with a short tail or no tail at all.[115] This occurs more frequently in those breeds that are frequently docked and thus have no breed standard regarding the tail."

The above section is an egregiously ridiculous statement, not based on science: the tail in an animal will not stop growing in its descendants if you keep cutting it off. This, once again, promotes the interests and myth of competitive and commercial breeders who are increasingly under attack, as many countries have now banned cosmetic tail docking and cropping of ears in dogs.

Valid scientific medical veterinary views on tail docking: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking.asp http://www.bva.co.uk/activity_and_advice/Tail_docking_of_dogs.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oprah999 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok,but its sure a disruptive conference - Esterrio talk 11:49, 01 July 2011

I think the entire section should be removed. The page shouldn't be about a debate on tail docking. It would be just as ridiculous to talk about dog fighting and how some individuals have differing views on the practice. Veterinarians overwhelmingly oppose the practice solely on medical grounds. The decision to dock the tail is done because of human interest. The dog is being used to hunt, living in a "tale unsafe" environment, or what have you. Talking about docking might be legitimate when discussing how dogs are used in certain ways (hunting, etc), but placing it as a description is like saying the horseshoe is part of the horse. Given that we're discussing the species, docking should be recognized as a modification to appearance, not casually thrown into the topic as if it's standard. I've seen dogs colored green for St. Patrick's day, but I wouldn't promote placing that in the coat section.

Outside of my soapbox, the tail section has other issues. The source doesn't appear to indicate that there are dogs born without tails (there may be). It says docking is "traditionally done," but that's questionable, especially considering how many places it's banned. The description of tails is rather vague given that most tails change position. If you want a tail section, some pictures or more detail might help. It also says tail docking is done to prevent injury, but the source doesn't back up that it does so (not to mention docking is an injury). It's also not clear that tail docking is done primarily to prevent injury, which is implied.Baron of Dinosaur (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The article tail includes an uncited statement that canines use their tails for communication. Shall I remove it because it is uncited? No one to date has, and I think someone might object if I did, probably because it's so brain-numbingly obviously true. I will add the statement to this article and expect no one to object on the grounds that it will be at least temporarily uncited for the same reason.Chrisrus (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jenwheels, 25 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please delete: " The paws of a dog are half the size of those of a wolf " - source #165, because various species of wolves have much smaller paw sizes than various breeds of dogs. Similar size dogs can likewise have paws similar in size to wolves. Jenwheels (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Commented out in case someone wants to clarify it. That dog's tail curls up is also true only for some breeds. Materialscientist (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedish for whelp is "valpa", not "valp"

The article states that "The process of birth is whelping, from the Old English word hwelp (cf. German Welpe, Dutch welp, Swedish valp, Icelandic hvelpur)". Unless the author is referring to some older form of the word I'm unfamiliar with, the correct Swedish word would be "valpa". "Valp" in Swedish means "puppy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.60.10 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced?

Dogs can also be ridden by children as small horses. Among the best breeds for riding are the St. Bernard, the Newfoundland, the Landseer, and the Great Pyrenees.[1] Does not seem to belong in the middle of the history of pet dog ownership. Marj (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Predition

Reports from Croatia indicate that dogs are killed by wolves more frequently than sheep.

I didn't realize that sheep even killed dogs. --71.214.223.139 (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That phrase means wolves kill dogs more frequently than wolves kill sheep. Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Work

"Boxers are commonly used as service dogs for blind people because of their intelligence and alert expression." Is this true? It isn't referenced. Marj (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The last half of the Work section is problematic. Marj (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:34 days old dog foetus.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:34 days old dog foetus.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism

The section on cannibalism seems an odd inclusion as it only references one event, and doesn't discuss the subject in general. It would make more sense if it cited studies of the behavior. Additionally, it ends with the line, "The 7 dogs further attacked police officers and the dogs should be paralyzed." I'm not sure if this is a poor translation, poor grammar, a typo, or what... but as it stands, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'd recommend that the entire section be deleted unless it can be expanded (with citations). 170.145.0.100 (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 11 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} it is said that although dogs can get worms, human can also. The disease is called ocular larva migrangs, this is when its in the eye. Humans may lose their vision permanately this can be caused by dogs licking the faces of humans.[2]

Nicole2011 (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 11 October 2011

Why is that relevent to an article about dogs? (please explain, and re-request). Maybe we could mention it...but you have not made a specific request here. 00:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Social intellegence

In the intellegence section it is stated that "The domestic dog has a predisposition to exhibit a social intelligence that is uncommon in the animal world." It should be considered exchanging the phrase social intellegence for social skills (which is correct anyway) as social intellegence is part of MI(Multiple intellegences)-theory which seems to be a minority view within the field of intellegnce research. The majority view seems to be that Social intellegence (along with other intellegences within MI-theory) in reality are mental skills incorrectly dubbed as intellegence although it has no psycologic conection with g (general intellegence factor).

I know it is not really important but still worth fixing. Thanks for listening.

Theory of multiple intelligences

SerioBasquos 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SergioBasquos (talk • contribs) 07:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your proposed change.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"An Australian Shepherd-Beagle mix displaying mastery of the "sit" command" photo

Although the dog in this photo was labelled as an Australian Shepherd-Beagle mix, I actually believe this to be a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever (or Toller) for short. The shape of the ears and face, the colouring and white markings, as well as the slightly longer hair on the back of the front legs are all indicative of the Toller breed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.14.196 (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What about cats?

I think a section about dogs vs cats should be made, considering these are both popular pets. You should compare the pros and cons of each. 64.30.122.41 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is absurd to have 2 contradictory facts on wikipedia, on the 'cats' page it is stated that dogs hear from beginning from 67hz, while on the dogs page it says 40 hz, which is actually more acute then a felines stated 44hz, which is obviously false.98.238.248.26 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.55.49 (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources differ in what they say about hearing frequency ranges, among other things. Both articles should probably note that sources differ. Both articles should and do cite supporting sources (see e.g., this source -- one of the supporting sources cited by this article, which itself has something to say about differences between other sources). WP:DUE speaks to handling of cases where reliable sources have significant differences. WP:V speaks to verifiability, and to verifiability vs. perceived factualness. Other project pages have some bearing on this. See also Template:Contradict other and WP:SOFIXIT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Compare the pros and cons" of dogs and cats as pets?? Pros and cons according to who? That would be a very subjective, POV list, and it has no place in an encyclopedia. It would be more appropriate in a pet-owner's or homeowner's guidebook. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

About 2/3 of the way down the page, under "Differences from wolves/Physical characteristics" it says "Further information: Wolves" but when you click on the hotlink "Wolves" you are taken to a page on an English football club, the Wolverhampton Wonderers. Can this link be fixed to direct users to a page on the animal? 69.113.201.240 (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Style

I have no clue if I am doing this right. Anyway, I am shocked at the writing style of this article. Is there no one who oversees such things at WP? Let's examine the opening:

"The domestic dog (a union of Canis lupus familiaris[3] and Canis lupus dingo[1][2]) is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order "Carnivora". The term is used for both domesticated and feral varieties."March 1, 2012

By "the term", I suppose he means "dog", however, the preceding sentence has used many terms, "domestic dog" being in bold. Obviously that term cannot refer to the feral variety. This is simply sloppy writing. Further:

"The word "dog" may also mean the male of a canine species,[4] as opposed to the word "bitch" for the female of the species"

Better: "Dog" may also refer to the male of any species of the family Canidae, with "bitch" referring to the female.

Continuing, "The present lineage of dogs was domesticated from gray wolves about 15,000 years ago.[6] Domesticated dogs have been found in Siberia and Belgium from about 33,000 years ago in two localized but separate instances of domestication. "

Doesn't anyone see that these sentences contradict each other? Was it 15,000 or 33,000? The second sentence also itself has problems. If the instances from Siberia and Belgium were localized, it follows that they were separate, so "but" makes no sense.

The rest of the article is as poor as the opening. I think this is probably a frequently visited article and is an embarrassment for WP. It should be overhauled. Colbyhawkins (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the opening statement which is incorrect and misleading. About the apparent contradiction. The present lineage of dog is most likely not from domestication events prior to 15,000 years ago and could possibly be from as late as 8500 years ago. But there were domesticated dogs as early as 33,000 years ago. I'll think about a better way to say localized but separate. Thanks.Jobberone (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Domestic dog"

This article begins with "domestic dog" rather than simply "dog". It then says "this term is used for both feral and pet varieties". Is this to say that feral dogs are still considered "domestic"? Seems confusing to me. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your right, it is confusing. It's like a zebra is a wild horse, and an African wild dog is a wild dog. So to distinguish from these, we call the common animals "domestic horse" and "domestic dog", even when they go feral or even wild, to distinguish them from other species. So we have feral domestic dogs, truely wild "dogs" that aren't true dogs, like coyotes and such, and truely wild true dogs like dingoes that are still "domestic dogs". Whew! Chrisrus (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The dingo article starts by distancing them from dogs. I've replaced domesticated form to subspecies here in the dog article. I'd like to see what all think about removing the first mention of C lupus dingo from the stating sentence. I think this should be addressed in the main body of the article since there is controversy about where to place dingos, Carolina dogs, etc. Discuss please.Jobberone (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I like what you've done, but I'm not sure we should do exactly as you suggest. I will try to clarify based on what you've said, but the simple fact is that experts (at least MSW3) list both C.l.dingo and familiaris as subspecies, but note that Canis lupus includes "the domestic dog" as one subspecies consisting of these two taxa. That's just the way the dog is defined by mammology these days. It was simpler when wolves and dogs were separate species and the dingo was a subspecies of dog, but in my opinion, but experts don't listen to Wikipedia usersnames like me. Chrisrus (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you and I think we should follow MSW3 to avoid as much confusion as possible. It's already confusing enough. I'm just thinking we should move the reference to the dingo to the body of the article. I'm not certain it helps much at the start of the article esp since its a dog article. Jobberone (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I like very much what you did in the current version Chrisrus. I still think we should avoid Dingo in the opening statements and stick with the familiar dog. We can insert the Dingo in the body of the article and of course the scientific classification lists them as a subspecies and is right there for everyone to see as well. You cannot even get the experts to agree on exactly what the Dingo is. And of course there are 'wild' dingoes and 'domesticated' dingoes. Of course the same applies to the grey wolf with some nuances for both. Just a thought and I certainly don't feel strongly about it.Jobberone (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur; C. l. dingo should not be in the lead--it's too jarring. Pure dingos may already be extinct anyway. Speciate (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I could eliminate what's in the parentheses from the lead, but we can't as much as we might wish we could go back to the days when the domesticated dog was just one taxon because it has two I'm sorry that's the way it is. C.l.dingoes are dogs, too. See Subspecies of Canis lupus or Canis lupus dingo, which is not the same as the article Dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
By WP:weight, we can. It doesn't have to be in the lead, maybe just the infobox and somewhere further down. Also, the scientific consensus on dingos as a seperate subspecies is not strong. Speciate (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
We are putting the weight on MSW3, which is what we do on Wikipedia. If we are going to say that there is only one taxon that means domestic dog, C.l.familiaris only, and that C.l.dingoes are not also dogs, we're going to have to find some other reference of greater "weight" to use than the one we're using. If we are going to continue to use this reference, we have to faithfully report what it says. Chrisrus (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
We deviate from the MSW3; Brocket deer. Speciate (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not advocating we deviate away from normal conventions. Right now there is no reason to argue about how to classify Dingoes. My point is why even have the reference to dingoes right up front. The article is about the dog. There is a separate article about the Dingo as there should be. And I see no problem with discussing the dingo some in the article about the dog somewhere. I also am perceiving some possible confusion in the classification and how it reflects on the dog article. The dog is a subspecies of Canis lupus. The Dingo is also a subspecies of Canis lupus but the wolf, dog and dingo are different enough to be separate distinct entities. There are political and conservation nuances in discussing C lupus dingo as a domestic dog. Some of this is purely scientific arising from the fact they were a form of domesticated lupus at one time. Some comes from factions wanting to eliminate the dingo in certain areas or at least limit their impact on other domestic animal esp sheep etc. If they are considered domestic dogs then they can poison them etc. Considering them as non-dogs leads to giving them protected status and that's another issue with its own problems and solutions.

There is no complete census on exactly what the dingo is. So my point is there is no need to tie the dog together with the dingo at the beginning of the article and give the appearance they are both domesticated dogs. I think the issue is confusing enough without giving the perception dingoes are unequivocally 'just' domesticated dogs when that's just not the case.Jobberone (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We have made substantial changes already to simplify the lead (lede). Please read it again, I hope you'll agree it's better. Dingoes are dogs, and other C.l.dingoes such as the Thai dog and such are very ordinary dogs. The citation says what the lead says and what our article Subspecies of Canis lupus says, just to name one. I will try to simplify the lead again in responce to what you're saying but we can't say that dog=C.l.familiaris when actually domestic dog = both familiaris and dingo. Just because a dog is feral or even totally wild and integrated into the ecosystem doesn't mean it's not still a dog anymore. Dingoes are dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Both the dog and dingo are subspecies of the grey wolf. Not everyone agrees that dogs=dingoes. There is certainly enough differences to make them separate subspecies. Dingoes are not classified as familiaris at this point in time. What you are saying is akin to saying Neanderthals=sapiens sapiens.Jobberone (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Citation says "domestic dog" subspecies of Canis lupus is defined as Canis lupus dingo Canis lupus familiaris, so while you are right that dogs=dingoes is not correct and that dingoes are not considered "familiaris" at this time, experts do agree that dingoes are dogs that have gone feral or wild over much but not all of their range.
We can disagree with that, but it's what this citation says. If we want to say something otherwise, we'll need to change the citation to one that says otherwise. Chrisrus (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You are misreading this "article" which states this-

HOME --> CLASS MAMMALIA --> ORDER CARNIVORA --> SUBORDER CANIFORMIA --> FAMILY Canidae --> GENUS Canis --> SPECIES lupus

SUBSPECIES Canis lupus dingo Author: Meyer, 1793. Comments: [domestic dog] EXPORT AS CSV

Synonyms: 

   antarcticus Kerr, 1792
   australasiae Desmarest, 1820
   australiae Gray, 1826
   dingoides Matschie, 1915
   macdonnellensis Matschie, 1915
   novaehollandiae Voigt, 1831
   papuensis Ramsay, 1879
   tenggerana Kohlbrugge, 1896
   harappensis Prashad, 1936
   hallstromi Troughton, 1957

This hardly means that the 'domestic dog' is a union between familiaris and dingo. Additionally this flies in the face of the general consensus of the scientific community and is at best a misleading statement and at worst gives the lay person the idea dogs and dingoes are the same or maybe a mixture of the two. Also, there is no need to put the dingo in the lead with familiaris. This also could easily be misleading for the lay person. Your 'reference' is clearly unsatisfactory in stating your claim which is just not scientifically correct or verifiable. Your 'reference' gives no substantiation for the claim and is ancient. The first reference is from the same source and is about the wolf and also does not support your claim anywhere in the "article". Your references do not verify your statements.

The dingo is distinct both morphologically and genetically from familiaris; enough so that considerable efforts are being made to conserve the pure dingo from complete hybridization with familiaris. This is primarily being done be genetic differentiation using microsatelite markers and mtDNA alleles like A29. You can also distinguish between dog, dingo and dingo-dog hybrids using CAT scans and plain xrays of the skull and by skull measurements done by an expert as well as genetically.

If you wish to make an argument under a separate heading within the dog article then I encourage you to do so. Perhaps under the heading of DNA and evolution. The subject is covered in other articles in Wikipedia though although it certainly wouldn't hurt to broaden the horizon within the dog article itself which still needs work itself.

Let me know your intentions please. Thanks for your time.Jobberone (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the reference we're using about is MSW3. It has a page for C.l.dingo and one for Canis lupus and one for Canis lupus familiaris. Here they are, please look at the three of them:
This is the familiaris page: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000752, And this is the Canis lupus dingo page: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751. Look at the comments section of both of them. They are exactly the same. They say one thing and one thing only "[[domestic dog]]". This means that they both belong to the "domestic dog" grouping of the two subspecies into one, as you will see explained in the Comments section of the Canis lupus page, next:
This is the Canis lupus page: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738. It says quite a bit more, mostly not about this, in it's Comments section. The explanitory text about the domestic dog is this:
Canis lupus....
...Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms. Corbet and Hill (1992) suggested treating the domestic dog as a separate species in SE Asia. Synonyms allocated according to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), Mech (1974), and Hall (1981).
This means that Canis lupus contains a subspecies called "domestic dog". This subspecies is a union of two subspecies, which they're sorry about but hey, there's no taxon between species and subspecies so they have limits on the vocabulary they can use, so what can you do, you know? So the domestic dog is an unranked thing between species and subspecies which they're also calling a subspecies, which is to stretch the subspecies concept, we know, but it is what it is. So they're going to explain in the comments as best they can, and at least this way, they have the correct allocation of synonyms and it was the least bad option. They sound like they almost didn't do it this way, they almost united them into one subspecies, and that would be a reasonable way of doing it, but in the end were swayed by Corbet and Hill's 1992 argument that C.l.dingo not be united with familiaris but held separate.
This is what the citation, MSW3, says about the domestic dog. And they also list the synomyms. If we replace this citation with one that says something else, we can say something else. If we continue to use this, then this is what we should say because that's what they say.
Taxonomy and sausages are two things that can be ruined for you if you watch it being made too closely. Chrisrus (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea how to respond to this well. I see no way to logically conclude from any of those references, which in one reference only uses older references not benefiting from recent genetic, anthropological or other studies, that the domestic dog is a union of dingo and familiaris. It just never says the domestic dog is a union of the dingo and familiaris subspecies. That's not what I read. That first sentence is not verified by your references nor are you likely to find any reference that is current that reflects that idea.

The consensus is they are both distinct subspecies of the wolf. There is no general consensus in the scientific community that lumping dingoes together with familiaris equates to the 'domestic dog' whatever that means. They are similar such as being able to breed fertile offspring bur for the most part they are different animals. Different enough to classify them separately. Familiaris is the domestic dog and everyone understands that. While I agree there are nuances about some wild dogs like the dingo, Carolina Dog, and others, they are not considered to be domestic dogs feral or not in the broadest sense. Familiaris breeding with dingoes gets you dingo-dog hybrids which may be domestic or wild.

I encourage you to post your differing thoughts in the body of the article with whatever references you deem fitting. There certainly is room to present information about the domestication or semi-domestication of the dingo prior to introduction into Australia and how that relates to the domestication of the dog in general. It is also fitting to briefly discuss dog hybrids including the dingo-dog hybrid although this is discussed in more detail in separate articles. If you want to discuss exactly what the domestic dog actually is then I would suggest a new section which would hopefully contain some morphological, behavioral and genetic studies into view.

I am revising the sentence with appropriate references. If you strongly disagree then we can mediate this or even have a formal dispute. Cheers. Jobberone (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW here are some more current references for the wolf and dingo which are on the endangered list. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/41585/0. Notice there is reference to the initial classification of dingo as Canis familiaris dingo in 1793. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3746/0 for the grey wolf.Jobberone (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me ask you this: Why do you think that it says “domestic dog” in brackets on the C.l.dingo page, just as it does on the familiaris page?
I don't know. They also keep the original classification. I certainly hope you aren't making the decision to believe the dog and dingo union make for the domestic dog based on that. You can domesticate a wolf and a dingo up to a point. Neither are a 'dog' though. Please don't hang your hat on that one thing which means absolutely nothing when there are tons of data and references out there that say something completely different from your statement.
They put "domestic dog" in the comments section because they are saying that it's also part of this "domestic dog" thing, just like familaris. They explain this in the comments on the Canis lupus section.
Why do you think they say in the comments section on the Canis lupus contains the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo only provisionally separated?
Because it's old information. Also that particular singular datum buried in a much larger sentence in no way verifies your statement and in fact they are not provisionally separated anymore. I suggest you research this further rather than insist on your POV.
Ok, let's say it's old information. But what is this information that you are saying is old, specifically? That C.l.dingoes are "domestic dog"? Also, my point of view is completely at odds with that of this citation. I'll not share it with you here now, as the topic under discussion is not my personal point of view, but rather what this citiation says. Chrisrus (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
If they weren't trying to say that the C.l.dingo isn't also "domestic dog", then why did they write "domestic dog" in brackets on the comments on its page?
Perhaps because intially the dingo was classified as Canis familiaris dingo. Do you still think we should refer to the dog as Canis familiaris rather than Canis lupus familiaris. The initial classification was in the 1700's. Again you can't just jump to your conclusion that the domestic dog is a union between familiaris and dingo because there is one word in brackets. There is plenty of old and no longer factual information on that page.
So are you saying I'm misinterpreting it, or that it's old and wrong? Chrisrus (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Remember, in this conversation, we are only talking about what this citation says or does not say. That is all. Chrisrus (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I addressed your concerns within your own edit. I hope that helps. I'm not going to play the game of edit/undo with you over this. This is not about winning but making Wikipedia accurate and improving it. Your information is drawn from illogical conclusions based on one word in a bracket in old data. You are conveying incorrect information that is not substantiated by your references. I will place this in dispute. Cheers!Jobberone (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't want to play games and edit war and don't care about winning and losing but only about accuracy and article improvement. I'll tell you what I think just happened. You saw two taxa for the domestic dog (as opposed to raccoon dog or African wild dog or any other of the animals called "dog"), and you were filled with conviction that that can't be right, there should be just one taxon for the dog, and that is familaris. But then I showed you that this is in fact exactly what the citation says. Then you started to say that the authority wasn't high enough, that it was old information, which is different from saying I've misinterpreted it, and now at the end here back to saying I've misinterpeted it again, but I'm giving you "chapter and verse" and you're not referring to the text, but making statements that sound like their coming from you. So take it to dispute resolution if you want, but I don't recommend it. Instead, try to understand why MSW3 decided on this strange conclusion and help the reader who is likely to react as you have in high percentages and use that to improve the taxonomy and relationships section of this article so this rather bracing revolation so quickly stated in the lead can be properly explained in more detail there. Here we need, perhaps, and expert, not a dispute resolution, so let's go this route instead:

Chrisrus (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Chrisrus, that's not what I thought. It is a cognitive distortion to think you know what someone is thinking. It is called 'mind reading'. And no, I merely believe you are reading way too much into references which clearly don't say what you think they do. I've read your talk page and this is not the first time you've been accused of that. You have also had problems with reverting things including the article about the dingo. This has infuriated others and led to your temporary ban from editing. It is incorrect to state the domestic dog is a union of familiaris and dingo. There is nothing in the literature I can find to substantiate that. This matter is in dispute and we'll have a decision at some point. I have no personal feelings about this or you and I suspect we'll work together again. Until the resolution on this topic....Cheers!Jobberone (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Earlier domestication events

It appears that http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0022821 there was an earlier domestication of dogs prior to the last Ice Age. It seems that whenever humans entered the range of the grey wolf they dometicated them. I have adjusted the article to emphasize the point that what we have managed to uncover with DNA tests on living dogs only informs us about the present lineage of domestic dogs. Here are some notions to help guide further changes to the article;

  • The idea of a domesticated dog is older than the dog itself.
  • The Belgium and now Altai finds of the ealier lineage c. 35,000 ybp of domesticated wolves shows that wolves are predisposed to domestication.
  • The earlier domestication happened during the last warm period, in Eurasia. It seems that people find dogs most useful in non-Ice Age climes and climates, (in other words, not Africa and not for large game animals).
  • It may be that the last Ice Age wiped out the older lineage of dogs.
  • As far as I know, the oldest cave painting of a dog is only 14,000 years old.

In any case, the lay media's characterization of the finds to mean that present dogs had many domestication events spread out over thousands of years is not supported. Please don't edit that into the article! Speciate (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the current thinking is there were multiregional domestication events as early as 33,000 years ago. This would have preceded the Last Glacial Maximum. It is not thought those lineages survived the event. The genetic and morphological evidence is at times at odds so the entire picture is just not there for us to clearly understand the big picture yet. However, it's clear the wolf was domesticated as early as 33,000 years ago in Europe and Siberia, there are probably some morphological changes suggesting domestication which were not, we do not have an understanding of a transitory species between wolf and dog, and genetics and anatomy are somewhat at odds right now.

The entire section on evolution and history really needs to be rewritten and will have to be updated fairly often to stay current. Jobberone (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Citations anyone? I have a few...Chrisrus (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

rollback

Rollbacks don't allow edit summaries, so I leave this here: I rolled back because this is pending dispute process resolution. Chrisrus (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


srtikewords

Topic of article

This article was and is about Canis lupus familiaris, which is what our readership considers to be the domestic dog. There is no other article on C. l. familiaris, but there is one on Canis lupus dingo. It is not appropriate for the dingo, which is not described in this article, to be mentioned in the lead, or in the infobox or in any way which suggests it is the topic of this article. I believe this will solve the problem being endlessly argued above, and keep nonsense such as calling a subspecies the "union" of two subspecies from ever disgracing this article again. Speciate (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read Canis lupus dingo for some idea of how many dogs other than the one the taxon is named for would be declared non-dogs by this action. For example, the common average street dogs of wide swaths of southeast asia and beyond. Chrisrus (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I know that biologically there are two subspecies of domestic dogs! But you are pointing me to the article on the other one. Get it? This article is about Canis lupus familiaris, and is titled Dog because that is the WP:commonname of that subspecies. The common name of Canis lupus dingo is Dingo. Speciate (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is about domestic dogs in general. Chrisrus (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Read through, and there is only one passing mention of dingos. In fact, it is mostly about the present lineage of Canis lupus familiaris. This is the result of nearly every single editor of this page's unconscious consensus. We now know that humans have domesticated wolves at least three times; the genetically extinct 33kbp lineage, the dingo, and the Eurasian domesticated lineage. So the dingo should be included in this article as a counterexample to C. l. familiaris, and should be treated equally as far as is possible in other articles (such as Origin of the domestic dog, where they are ignored). But if you imagine that this is an article about Canis lupus familiaris that happens to by titled "Dog" due to Wikipedia guidelines, you'll see the elegance of the solution. Speciate (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, the common name of many if not most forms of Canis lupus dingo isn't "dingo", it's maybe Bali street dog or New guinea singing dog or Telomian. (this reply out of sequence)Chrisrus (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's a lady with a Canis lupus dingo from Thailand: http://www.travelblog.org/Asia/Thailand/South-West-Thailand/Ko-Pha-Ngan/blog-357341.html. Are you saying it's not a dog? Ignore the pug, please. Chrisrus (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The average reader has no idea what those are. Little children have dogs, and slightly older children in the English-speaking world have heard of the dingo. The readership of this article is not scientists who are conversational with the intricacies of subspecies delineation. Please, this argument is not based on taxonomy, it is based on Wikipedia guidelines. Speciate (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
If an English-speaking person sees her dog, he'd call it a dog. Because it's a perfectly ordinary dog, especially in that part of the world, which is no less imporant than the English-speaking parts of the world. Chrisrus (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it is less important, for two reasons. One, this is the English Wikipedia, and two, there are about 1000 C. l. familiaris for every 1 C. l. dingo. Speciate (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll take this uncited stat from you on faith and reply "not in Indonesia, etc."
There are ~400,000,000 C. l. familiaris and ~600,000 C. l. dingo including all the hybrids, which is at 80% in Australia. Speciate (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In Australia? Please cite stuff. But actually, why are we discussing this? I don't see how that matters. If the situation were reversed, they'd still all be dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Second, these citations aren't taking what language one speaks into account. But you may be onto something interesting, albeit IMHO irrelevent to what we do on Wikipedia, which is just pass on what citaions say.
I'm talking about English usage, which informs Wikipedia guidelines. Not to get too philosophical, but the word for dog in Thai, "ma", நாய், refers to C. l. familiaris and dingos are wild dogs, டிங்கோ நாய். So people probably are comfortable with the notion of separate Wikipedia articles on them, even if there are a lot more dingos in Thailand. Speciate (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"A rose by any other name..."

By the way, I've noticed you're using different refernces. Would you like to take a look at them together? What do they say, and what do you notice about them, or are we still in disagreement about what MSW3 says? Chrisrus (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, tell me what you mean. Speciate (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You want to replace the MSW3 with others. You left them on the dispute page. Let's look at them. What are they; what do they say, and are they more authoritative than MSW3 in general or under what circumstances are they preferable to MSW? Chrisrus (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Much of this entire problem Chrisus is derived from your interpretation of what that page says re the dingo. You see [domestic dog] on that page and you make the leap that not only does that mean the dingo is a domestic dog but that the domestic dog is the union of familiaris and dingo. First off I and others don't think that's what it means. I suspect its there because at the very first in 1798 the dingo was classified as a subspecies of the dog or Canis familiaris dingo. So initially it was a subspecies of the common dog. If it were 1798 you'd be factually correct.
Now they are separate subspecies. Much of the hoopla is not over that fact but that the lead as you wrote it is very misleading to the general public. That's why we wanted to change it. Address all the nuances in the body of the article or in a satellite article of the dog. What's a domestic dog is a much tougher question and answer than the taxonomy of wolves, dogs, and the dingo. Cheers.Jobberone (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
We as Wikipedias shouldn't read into stuff too much. Our "interpretation" of what sources say should as much as possible be literal. MSW3 says, literally, that there is a subspecies of Canis lupus called "domestic dog" and marks it as these two taxa. It's that simple and short and to the point and uses few words. You say I read too much into these few words, but at least I'm addressing them. You seem to brush them off as if they don't matter. If they don't mean that, what do they mean? Explain why the words are there or what they do mean if not what seems obvious to me that they mean. I see this as "hand waving". Chrisrus (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If MSW3 says that some rodent is an aquatic rat, and another member of its genus is an aquatic rat, should we combine these two species into one article, Aquatic Rat? No. Speciate (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Chrisus, you are fixated on that one internet page which does not mean what you think it does. You must understand the entire topic to understand that one single item of [domestic dog] does not change the entire scientific communities consensus that the dingo is morphologically, behaviorally and genetically a separate species than familiaris.
Now if you want to discuss just what a domestic dog truly is then there is some justification for thinking of the entire genus as being 'domestic'. What's the difference between a wild feral familiaris' behavior and a wolf? Often not that much although still some. Same for the dingo and dog hybrids of the wolf and dingo. This may be responsible for some of the confusion. The article is about familiaris. It is not about the 'domestic dog' although most people think familiaris when you say domestic dog. A pure Canis lupus raised from a very early age is domestic although will still have some behavioral differences from the typical familiaris. The same applies to the dingo which is more easily domesticated. If you try to domesticate an older feral familiaris then you will run into many of the same problems as you would a wolf or even a wolf pup that is more than a few weeks old. There are common dogs which for whatever reasons do not make good pets and you could make a case they aren't domesticated very well. In fact in the few cases where there have been feral humans there were problems domesticating them as well. Cheers. Jobberone (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you mean subspecies there. Anyway, we have argued this enough. Three editors (including User:TransporterMan over at Dispute resolution) have reached consensus that the article Dog is about Canis lupus familiaris, and that the article Dingo is about Canis lupus dingo. Just as there are two domesticated camels, the Bactrian and the Dromedary, which were domesticated independently, there are two domesticated dogs. Unlike camels, the word "dog" and the term "domesticated dog" far and away are used to mean Canis lupus familiaris in common speech, precluding changing the Domestic Dog redirect into a disambig page or some sort of article on the overall concept of domesticated dogs. Speciate (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why MSW3 is so favored for citing taxoboxes and taxonomic statements in leads of articles about extant mammals? I haven't really checked up on them myself, but I gather from other Wikipedians that it is produced by "The Global Association of Authoritative Mammalogists" or some such. And what they do is get together and review the papers and listen to the presentations and counter-presentations and get the evidence together stroke their bearded chins and discuss everything. And then they elect different individuals among themselves to author different sections. In this section, I think they chose a Ph.d. guy with a long, maybe Polish-sounding last name that started with a W, but they review it thoroughly and come to some consensus and word things very carefully and check Dr. W's wording and publish it and that's it for a while. Again, I haven't checked into this, just gathered it somehow from other Wikipedians, so please do check up on it because I'm sure I'm wrong about the details. Let me know if you think you have a higher authority you'd like to propose and why. Actually, you should bring it to a more general forum about why long-standing Wikipedia consensus to rely on MSW isn't as good as another. Anyway, I know this. Many times listening to experts argue on Wikipedia one'll present MSW3 taxonomy and the other will meekly back down saying "Oh, MSW says that? Ooohhh. Sorry. I stand corrected" and they move on to what that fact means in terms of article improvement that follows from their pronouncements. Which is what you and I should be doing instead of this.

So that's why I say we should respect the experts and submit to their authority in terms of taxobox and lead. After all, isn't that what Taxonomy is for? It's like the Dewey decimal system for living things. Taxonomy is indispensable because so they can label and organize them into boxes and jars on shelves and drawers and subdivisions in drawers so everyone knows what the other is talking about in an international lanaguage regardless of local culture, language, or tradition. How could we do without traditional Taxonomy? Shudder to think. Taxonomy is important so we all agree on what things are going to be called so we can share a common language and talk. Without an agreed authority for each book in the library, things would get too confusing and the whole library becomes useless. So when MSW stamps the words "domestic dog" at the top of the C.l.dingo page, see it the way I do. You seem to brush it off, but it's the stamp of authority and we must run with it barring some extraordinary reason. Wouldn’t it be easier for an encyclopedia if we had one taxon for “wolf” and one for “dog”? Instead of ‘’Canis lupus’’, which now is wolves in part and dogs in part, we’re not merging the articles dog and wolf even though MSW taxonomy does. That’d be easier on our system, but we just deal with the problems they lay on us because they don’t think about encyclopedia organization when they do their jobs and can’t worry about us; we worry about them. They knowingly or unknowingly regularly hand us difficulties and we deal as best we can, but we can’t change their decisions.

This all to get you to stop speak of it as "that one internet page" and that "one single item" not having any significant meaning. Don't talk that way. I personally wouldn't have done many things the way they do them, but for taxoboxes and complements in leads and taxoboxes, we have to run with some standard. Don't brush it off as nothing. If it bothers you or perplexes you or if you just can't agree, welcome to my world, but don’t fight it. We have the rest of the article to deal with it, and you are right, it does not as it stands. Yet.

Certainly, we should go back to the species page and read the explanation that they've got there, and if that's not enough or if we can't understand we should check the references they used and see if that will help. If it's too hard, we find experts to review things for us and help us understand. We have to explain what experts say to the people. That's what it's all about.

Also, remember that taxonomy is crude compared to cladistics. It's not boxes and jars with walls separated cleanly; it's a smooth transition from one evolutionary branch of the tree of life to the next, with all kinds of complicated branching, branching, branching and no abrupt wall between referents. All MSW3 has to deal with is a series of rankings, and not nearly as many rankings and sub rankings and such that others can invent to stick in between and around referents. It's just the old kingdom, phylum, and so on. Here, they're up against the wall. Or the floor, actually, because they have nothing between species and subspecies and nothing below the basement floor of "subspecies" and so crude tools to describe reality with. So if they find themselves forced into the awkward position of talking about one subspecies that consists of two subspecies, please, give them a break. Try to understand what they're up against and know that they are doing the best they can and trust that they have their best people on this and don't take this lightly. Look for example at the way the taxonomy and claddistics section of the article Felidae, for example. It's quite rare on Wikipedia, and most excellent. They have the taxonomy, but at the same time they have numbered marks for the clades so you can get kinda see how that tree branches as compared to the taxonomy, which is not exactly the same as the traditional taxonomy, which goes back to not only before modern genetic testing but also even before experts even understood evolution even happened or assumed that these similar things were all related to common ancestors. So yes, I understand when you say that it sounds wierd to talk about one subspecies that constists of two. But you have to let the experts stretch a taxonomic ranking here or there if they feel they must in order to communicate reality. If they feel they must they must have pretty good reason. We just deal as best we can. Chrisrus (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've read most from above and I gather you are trying to justify the MSW as the be all end all. Well it's not. It's often out of date as it is now with the last revision in 2005. They are way behind the times in naming new species and recent changes in taxa. The IUCN is generally more up to date and includes references etc. Wikipedia needs to cite the best and most recent material it can get its hands on. There is no rule that states the MSW is what we must rely on.
Additionally, you are misapplying [domestic dog] on a page that clearly states its a different subspecies to fit your own agenda and totally ignoring science.
Furthermore you are totally ignoring the dispute resolution we went thru on this very issue which stated you were misusing the citation and were not following Wikipedia guideline. You just ignored the entire process. You asked the moderator if he was an expert and then asked for an expert opinion when he decided against you. I guess its no surprise to find you reverted things back to your own version of the truth and what you think is best for Wikipedia all by yourself.
I really don't know how to deal with you. Are you really going to ignore the dispute resolution?Jobberone (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The answer to the question there "What does it mean when MSW put the words "domestic dog" there like that?" is "It's an instruction to file under "domestic dog". He answered basically "I don't know but if you ask it must mean that it's ambiguous", but that's not the reason I asked. I wanted to know if he knew it was a note to file these two taxa under "domestic dog". That's what it is, but he doesn't seem to know that. Those words in those two places mean that file all such animals under "domestic dog". They use the term "domestic" to distinguish it and other animals also called "dog". To his credit, he doesn't claim to know what it means. Less so, he seems to think that means that therefore no one does. Chrisrus (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

33,000-year-old year old dog skull

Found in Siberia, but another one about that old in Belgium.[3] Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"....indicates that domestication of dogs may have occurred repeatedly in different geographic locations rather than with a single domestication event." Back in the early '90s, Laurie Corbet said that the conditions that led to the domestication of the dog were "common and widespread" and so if it could have happened in East Asia, it could have happened in Central Eurasia, Southwest Asia, and Siberia as well. Looking at them, I thought for a long time that they seem to have separate ancestors, but since have gathered that current evidence shows all existant dogs decend from one single domestication event, somewhere in east Asia. This evidence, however, indicates that there once were dogs that evolved at another place and time, but seem to have left no ancestors. Chrisrus (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Newer evidence suggest the Middle East. The genetic and morphologic studies don't jive well.Jobberone (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Please introduce some transitional ideas between the facts about the research on this into the article so that it isn't incoherent. Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a multiple issue tag to the section on evolution and history. My thoughts are the section is confusing and needs to be rewritten to be more concise and flow better. It also needs either to be condensed with the bulk of the discussion reserved for the satellite article or expanded a little to be more up to date.

If you wish to include the controversy of where the present lineage of dogs originated then you need to add the recent mtDNA analysis of Boyko et al and compliment it with the previous work done on the central asian origin. There are also recent paleoarcheological finds in the Middle East that could be mentioned here. Also, there have been some studies of wild dogs in Africa with a great deal of genetic diversity compared to most dogs which relates to the origin of the dog. The area of NA fossils is out of date as well. Cheers!Jobberone (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fix those things. Or, should we get an ? Chrisrus (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can gather, there is no consensus on dog evolution among the experts. Speciate (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
That is correct. It appears the Middle East or Africa may be where the present lineage is from but Central Asia may be correct or it could even be multiregional. The information is out there to tell the current story well.Jobberone (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Or India. Canis lupus pallipes has been suggested to be closest to whatever lineage of wolves gave rise to dogs, and/or pariah dogs, and or dingos. Speciate (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2012

Please change:

Psychology research has shown that human faces are asymmetrical with the gaze instinctively moving to the right side of a face upon encountering other humans to obtain information about their emotions and state.

to

Psychology research has shown that humans´ gaze instinctively moves to the left in order to watch right side of the person's face, which is related to use of right emisphere brain for facial recognition, including human facial emotions.

because

- See explanation on http://www.perceptionweb.com/ecvp/ecvp07.pdf (reference 161) , page 148 (Thursday), Left gaze bias in human infants, rhesus monkeys, and domestic dogs:


- This has nothing to do with human face asymmetry. E.g. the link to human face asymmetry is not dealing at all with this issue.


Jmunoz2 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I didn't add you reference since it is also the reference used for the statement which follows. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundant Statements

The "History" section repeats the fact that dogs were domesticated "15,000 years ago" about 53 times. Somebody who cares should edit the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.90.132 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are just a few examples:

"domestication of our current lineage of dog occurred sometime as early as 15,000 years ago"

"The present lineage of dogs was domesticated from gray wolves about 15,000 years ago"

"dogs genetically diverged from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago"

"The divergence date of roughly 15,000 years ago is based in part on archaeological evidence that demonstrates the domestication of dogs occurred more than 15,000 years ago"

"Archaeological evidence suggests the latest dogs could have diverged from wolves was roughly 15,000 years ago"

You are right. Go ahead and make the edits. Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

i cant, i dont have access to edit the artlce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.90.132 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Just sign in. It's easy. Chrisrus (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It's better if we work to fix this obvious failing of the article. The article is so badly written that I have been unwilling to tackle any major changes. Speciate (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It reads like a "too many cooks" situation, if you know the term. I know we're supposed to write this cooperatively, but under the circumstances let's get one author to re-write. Chrisrus (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for replacement of "main" picture

When the article first pops up, you see a picture of a Yellow Labrador Retriever. This picture is very old, taken in 2004/uploaded in 2008. I myself snapped a couple of very good images of my mixed breed dalmatian, Kelly, just a couple weeks ago. I seek to use one of these images in lieu of the current. Is there anyway I could possibly upload these images here for preview? Camera: Nikon d7000. Lense: Nikon 300mm. --Iamsliske (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't no anybody who would classify anything from 2004 as "very old", unless we're talking about laptops or cell phones. If you're going to propose a change to a high-traffic article, you need to be explicit. First: What's wrong with the current photo of the Lab? Boneyard90 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Was there at one time species of canine that are now extinct?

This should perhaps be added to the article. There is a theory that the vast variety of domestic dogs are not simply the result of selective breeding from wolves. There may at one times been many species of canine related to the wolf that are now extinct and our great variety of domestic dogs we have today may very well be the result of breeding from these and even from hybirds of various species of canine that existed in the past from species that are now extinct in the wild. The Bengal cat is an example of a breed that waas created through hybridization. Many more breeds of animals could be created this way from all species of animals. 108.81.134.236 (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now the genetic and anatomical evidence suggests Canis lupus as the ancestor of the domestic dog. There is evidence that can be interpreted as multiregional emergence of the dog but it is not the only interpretation. If you have verifiable data to support your proposal then you should present it here first before modifying the article with same.Jobberone (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
What is likely, but not well-sourced enough, is that the subspecies of wolf that gave rise to the dog is extinct. Any hybridization would have been between subspecies and the evidence for that would be very hard to discern. Speciate (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, according to Wikipedia likely a species of Southern wolf, maybe pallipes, arabs, chanco, or an extinct variety closely related to these. I understand that the DNA is in on that much: the dog belongs to the southern wolf-branch on the tree of life. I think maybe it was one that may have existed in the blank space on wolf population maps where Thailand and such are found. C.l.dingo live in greater numbers in Thailand than in Australia, but our map of the distributions of the subspecies of Canis lupus shows no subspecies native to that area except dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Bluey's age record

It should be noted that the Bluey (dog) page specifically states that Bluey's record is recognised, contradicting this page. David (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 May 2012 - fix for broken link

Reference 104 is listed as a dead link. The corrected link is http://worldslargestdog1.com/zorba2

66.31.10.140 (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"In poor countries, euthanasia is usually violent."

What exactly does that statement mean? Painful? Bloody? Calling something "violent" is hardly a descriptive term. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed that small and unsourced paragraph - reads like WP:OR to me. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It means death is often by blunt trauma, gunshot, drowning, and suffocation which is violent compared to a lethal injection of a barbiturate. Clarifying that would be sufficient and is informative. That needs to be sourced though. Jobberone (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

There has been a discussion on the Mixed-breed dog page about the section on pariah dogs on that page. It was pointed out that as a more ancient breed or landrace, pariah dogs are not really mixed-breed dogs - either academically or genetically. The proposition and resolution was that the section be moved to another page. I see the Dog page already has a section on the pariah dog type. I would like to move the non-redundant information from the Mixed-breed dog page, and expand it a little. I can post the proposed edits, if anyone is interested. If this info should be on another dog-related page, please feel free to add your opinion to the discussion on the Mixed-breed dog Talk page, and tell us where the info on Pariah dogs should be moved. Thanks, Dave David Ross19 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. You should cut-and-paste a copy of this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs. It's a better place for this question than here. Chrisrus (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

anime??

not a single mention of dogs in anime?? how is this supposed to be a proper article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.39.106 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See List of fictional dogs Chrisrus (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Smartest animal in the world" Border Collie citation

Since the page is locked, could somebody add this reference to the Border Collie image under "Intellegence and Behavior"?

Coren, Stanley (1995). The Intelligence of Dogs: A Guide To The Thoughts, Emotions, And Inner Lives Of Our Canine Companions. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-37452-4.

209.145.113.233 (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dger (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect statement about dog meat consumption

"Dog meat is also consumed in some parts of Switzerland" is wrong. It should be "Dog meat *was* also consumed in some parts of Switzerland". Dog meat production has been illegal in Switzerland at least since Nov 23, 2005 (and Swiss people at large love dogs, wouldn't have eaten them even before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.192.21.87 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but we have only a citation that says the opposite. Can you find a WP:RS that confirms that what you say is true? Chrisrus (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That article is dated 1979 which is old enough to be outdated esp considering the current laws in Switzerland forbidding the commercial consumption of dog meat. The sale and/or commercial consumption of dog meat is verbotten but Switzerland does not presume to tell its citizens what it can and cannot consume personally. I don't see why the personal consumption of dog meat in some isolated mountain villages in Switzerland should be written into the encyclopedia as to make it seem dog meat is generally eaten there. It should be removed. In fact I don't see why there needs to be more than a sentence in the entire article about the consumption of dog meat. Jobberone (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
In addition here are some more current references:

http://www.englishforum.ch/food-drink/159876-consumption-dog-meat-legal-switzerland.html

Quoted from Tier Im Recht Transparent, chapter 2.1.13 'Darf Heimtiere gegessen werden?", page 82.

(Sorry I couldn't find an online link.)

"Ein ausdrückliches gesetzliches Verbot für den Verzehr von Heimtierfleisch gibt es nicht."

Roughly: there is no specific law banning eating a pet animal.

But, the slaughter and trade of animals is regulated under the various food laws, and in contrast to all the other animals listed as allowable, dogs, cats, rodents and monkeys are not on the list. Therefore:

"Das Fleisch von Heimtieren darf höchstens für den Eigengebrauch verwendet, jedoch weder verkauft noch unentgeldlich abgegeben, angepriesen oder gelagert werden. Der eigen gebrauch beschränkt sich dabei auf die sogenannte Kernfamilie, das heisst auf die im selben Haushalt lebenden Familienangenhörigen. Bereits die Abgabe von Heimtierfleisch an weitere Verwandte Freunde usw. oder eine Einladung zu so einem "Festmahl" ist verboten."

Roughly: Eating pets is at most allowable for one's own use, however meat from pet animials may not be sold, given away free, advertised, or stored. Own use is limited to the nuclear family, that means, to people living in the same household. The delivery of pet meat to friends or relatives, or invitation to a 'feast' is forbidden.

---

In principle, Swiss Animal Welfare Laws do not protect the life of an animal, but rather the welfare of that animal during it's lifetime. An animal must be kept free from pain, from suffering, from fear, from injury while alive - but unless a protected species, an animal may (in general) be killed provided one follows the laws preventing unnecessary suffering.

I would suggest anyone with further questions contact: http://www.tierimrecht.org

The picture with the labeling of doberman puppy is NOT a doberman!

As a dobbie lover, I am offended that somebody would mistake a dog like that as a doberman puppy. The tan is too light and the features too narrow and small to be a doberman puppy (dobbie puppies actually have blockier heads than they do when they are adults). I would know. The dog is most likely a Miniature Pinscher (which some people call a Miniature Doberman but is in NO WAY a small doberman, two totally different dogs). Can this be changed to either a real doberman puppy picture or to the correct labeling of that dog in the picture?

Cainismyboy (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could contribute a suitable picture to MediaWiki? Elekebia (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The picture does look like a doberman!

It may be a different breed but it looks like a dobie. --Drdayill (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

New Edit in response to above: There is no such thing as a different breed of doberman. There is the doberman pinscher created by the tax collector Mr. Doberman (and obviously named after him)and then the miniature pinscher which is NOT a tiny doberman. It is only a misnomer and neither breed is related. I have had both breeds. Here is a quote directly from the minature pinscher page:

"The misconception that the miniature pinscher is a "miniature Doberman" occurred because the Doberman pinscher was introduced to the US before the miniature pinscher. In 1919 the miniature pinscher was introduced to the AKC show ring. At the time, not knowing that it was referred to officially in Germany as the zwergpinscher (dwarfpinscher), the AKC referred to the breed as simply "pinscher" and listed it in the miscellaneous category. When the Miniature Pinscher Club of America (MPCA) was created in 1929 (the year of the breed's official introduction into the AKC), they petitioned for miniature pinschers to be placed in the Toy group. The AKC's description, that the dog "must appear as a Doberman in miniature", led to the misconception common today that this breed is a "miniature Doberman pinscher". The original name for this breed in the US was "pinscher" until 1972 when the name was officially changed to miniature pinscher. [3]"

Shelter?

We should remove or greatly modify the shelter section. It appears to be US specific, it is not subject specific, the adoption rate is confusing. Very Little in the section is useful.Mantion (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Right now it appears fine to me. I did not follow the link. Jobberone (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Units

The introduction cites imperial units with metric units in parenthesis. Since this is a science related article, and non-US or UK based, the [guidelines on which units to use] say that the units should generally be in SI units. the heights and other measurement units in the article should therefore be changed to SI or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI. Dekox (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a way to use both or maybe allow user preferation. As a scientist and part time resident of China the metric is fine with me. For the US and others it is more comfortable the other way round for the most part. Jobberone (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I switched the imperial and SI units in the lead section and standardized them on cm (in). The only other section in the article to use the conversion tags is the Biology section and it uses SI measurements first. Coaster1983 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't.t they mention that in 2012 the animal planet website had an America favorte pet election and dogs won? I mean they did that when it was Announced that the tiger won the world.s favorite animal contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likesstitch (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dog/wolf

Check this out: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unnatural_selection,_2_heads,_one_species.jpg There might be a way to use it here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.64.240 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiples lineages of paleolithic dogs

The present lineage of dogs was domesticated from gray wolves probably about 15,000 years ago.[5] Though remains of domesticated dogs have been found in Siberia and Belgium from about 33,000 years ago, none of those lineages seem to have survived the Last Glacial Maximum. There is no reference confirming that the remains of domestic dogs found in Siberia and Belgium are remains of another lineage of dogs ... Have somebody any informations on the existence of another lineage of paleolithic dogs?--Monsieur Fou (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The only recent reference I can find says : Wolf/dog split around 100,000 years ago, clearly morphologically domesticated dog fossils specimens 33,000 years ago. But nothing about different lineages of paleolithic dogs. The reference number 5 ([5]) was published in November 2002. The text about remains found in Siberia was published in 2011 and the text about the remains found in Belgium was published in 2009. I don't understand how a study published in 2002 can refer to remains found in 2009 and 2011 and exclude them of present lineage...--Monsieur Fou (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that first part. I interpret that data as we have fossil evidence of dogs back to 33K years ago but no DNA evidence to make the leap from 14000 years ago or so to relate to the fossil remains in Belgium and Siberia. Right now most agree the older lineage didn't get thru the last glacier maximum but I'm not convinced of that. There just isn't any data to prove they did. That's probably going to change and may already have. I haven't looked recently but DNA methods are exponentially getting better and faster. If you feel that needs to be cleaned up do so if you are certain of the data already out there which is substantial. In fact the entire History and Evolution as well as DNA sections need editing because they are too repetitive. One or two editors should edit this IMO. Jobberone (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

References

There are several citations to "Miklósi", but it is not clear, if this is a book, author, article or something else. It does not provide a link, ISBN or any possible way to verify. Sorry to say but those citations are clearly bogus as they are now. This is what I refer to: "25 ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Miklósi"Kshegunov (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume, the reference is to http://www.amazon.com/Behaviour-Evolution-Cognition-Oxford-Biology/dp/0199545669 Afru (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
If you scroll past the Reference section to Dog#Bibliography, you will see the it.--Dodo bird (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
That may be, but it isn't clear (and wasn't when I wrote my first comment) from the lengthy list of references that it should be searched in the bibliography. A hyperlink would have been much better, as it's obvious it made an impression on me and that's why I came to the talk page to comment specifically on that issue.Kshegunov (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No page numbers given either: you just have to read the whole book! William Avery (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
References #30, 31, 43, 114, 117 and 119 point to specific pages in the book. Probably the reason why the full citation was split from the reference section. I guess you could tag everything that points to #25 with Template:Page needed if you see the need.--Dodo bird (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Fossils

This has already been debated here. Fossils don't have to be mineralized bone etc. Any evidence left preserved which indicates the presence of an organism from the geologic past is a fossil including mummified and soft tissue remains. Signs of activity of an organism is also a fossil. It could be offensive to other editors for one to remove their work under the false assumption some old dog bones aren't fossils because they aren't completely mineralized. How do you think we get DNA out of old bones? If they were nothing but rock then we wouldn't get DNA would we?

If you're going to change work that has been there for quite awhile then perhaps it would be better to discuss it first or provide references that counter any information out there. Improving an article is to be encouraged. No one owns any article on Wikipedia. Having said that it's best to be correct as well as helpful and bold when improving any article.

Having said that there is nothing wrong with the use of archeological remains either. Jobberone (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't know where people got the idea that archeological remains are fossils. Look at the worthless citation in the article Fossil used to back up the ridiculous claim that 8,000 BCE is old enough to be a fossil. Even the Fossil article goes on to explain that fossilization is the process by which organic material is replaced (at least in part) by minerals. Do the sources on the dog remains from Belgium and Altai mention any mineralization? If not, then it is best to assume that none occurred. Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to debate this with you. All I can do is point you back to the definition I gave you of what a fossil is. OTOH, I've already said that I don't have a major problem with using archeological as you did. You do need to know that most people associate that word in the true sense which is the study of human activity. If you meant to use it as being something 'ancient' then that's ok. If you consider the fossils studied say in Belgium are related to human activity then I have no problem with that although I don't remember if they were or not.
Just dropping by here--you can google "what is a fossil" and find many, many credible pages that identify "fossil" to include many types of artifacts, not just mineralized ones, and that there's no minimum age for something to be called a fossil. The summary of the fossils article probably should be corrected because in fact it does talk about nonmineralized fossils under "subfossil" and "lagerstatte". Elf | Talk 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I will say that ref 6 is named:

= Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes =

Using multivariate techniques, several skulls of fossil large canids from sites in Belgium, Ukraine and Russia were examined to look for possible evidence of the presence of Palaeolithic dogs. Reference groups constituted of prehistoric dogs, and recent wolves and dogs. The fossil large canid from Goyet (Belgium), dated at c. 31,700 BP is clearly different from the recent wolves, resembling most closely the prehistoric dogs. Thus it is identified as a Palaeolithic dog, suggesting that dog domestication had already started during the Aurignacian.

So clearly the authors consider them to be fossils. Jobberone (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you aren't researching it well or you are being willfully obtuse. The reference for the statement calls them fossils and most people and definitions are clear on the matter of what a fossil is. I didn't bother looking at your 'ref' because that statement is ridiculous on its face. Additionally you were incorrect in using archeological and I was very polite it pointing it out to you. You are clearly wrong on two issues and just being obstinate. Which is your right but don't try and sell that nonsense to me please. I don't bother anymore with arguments. You can do what you wish to the article but you should try to get your facts straight first IMO. In fact the entire article needs to be tidied up. Jobberone (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hit me with secondary sources. Note that the reference calling them fossils cannot be considered reliable on the definition of fossils (in other words, it is a primary source). Note also that there is no mineralization, and the dogs were ritually buried. Abductive (reasoning) 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Now why should I do this for you when you can easily look this up yourself? If you only found one ref then you didn't look long. There are many to be found. However, in the interest of social relations here is one site. [2]

Altai dog - 33,000 BP

The oldest archeological specimens date to 33,000 years ago, but only specimens from 15,000 years ago have been genetically linked to the modern dog's lineage.[4][6][7][8] That's false. This recent publication (March 6, 2013) about altai dog confirm by DNA testing that altai dog is linked to modern dog's lineage: Druzhkova AS, Thalmann O, Trifonov VA, Leonard JA, Vorobieva NV, et al. (2013) Ancient DNA Analysis Affirms the Canid from Altai as a Primitive Dog. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057754. The reference([4]) is already in the article but somebody added only specimens from 15,000 years ago have been genetically linked to the modern dog's lineage.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That article is looking at mtDNA and not nuclear. It is interesting and it does need to be incorporated into the wiki article IMO. It is not definitive as relating the present lineage of dog to that specimen though. I personally believe we will find out that the dog did survive the LGM but that is personal and speculative only. That study is a chink in the armor for that statement though. Additionally, that sentence was changed recently and it should be changed from 'archeological specimens' to fossils. I'd be interested in discussing this with you. Cheers. Jobberone (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I corrected and moved the references in the History and evolution, until an update.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that mtDNA is as clear an indication of lineage as nuclear DNA, but I'm no expert and I'm not pursuing that point here. The assertion in the lead is "DNA evidence shows an evolutionary split between the modern dog's lineage and the modern wolf's lineage around 100,000 years ago but the oldest archeological specimens which is genetically linked to the modern dog's lineage date to 33,000 years ago", citing [4] in support. The link is to an article abstract. I haven't read the article, but
  • The abstract does not support the first part of the assertion (re 100,000 years), but that is supported in the DNA studies section.
  • The cited abstract says, "Here we isolated, [...] dated as approx. 33,000 cy from the Altai Mountains in central Asia. Only a single specimen - namely the Goyet dog (36,000 cy [2]) predates the Altai dog and hence it is thus far the second oldest known specimen assigned morphologically to the domestic dog", which doesn't clearly support what the article asserts.
  • Re the Goyet dog, the cited abstract cites [5], which says "The fossil large canid from Goyet (Belgium), dated at c. 31,700 BP ..." (not 33,000, not 36,000).
Accordingly, I've made this bold edit. Apologies for the difference in citation styles -- I'm not confident that I can hand-code complicated cites properly. Revert or improve as needed -- It seems to me that some content now in the lead should move to the DNA studies section. 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No problems. I changed DNA to MtDNA as you are correct. MtDNA and DNA are indeed different with their own unique problems. I think the lead is ok as its brief and useful for the casual reader. But feel free to make any changes you deem necessary and useful. I did change 30,000 to 33-36K but left the appropriate approximate. The genetic section needs to be condensed. There have been many contributions without cleaning up the redundancy and repetitive info. I haven't researched this area in a year so I'd certainly welcome some changes there. Cheers! Jobberone (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Foods toxic to dogs section

The refernces to this section seem incomplete. I see a scientific article about xylitol, but the other foods are found in articles at entirelypets.com and peteducation.com which have no scientific sources I can see. Citetation 155 talks about 'various sources' but does not cite them. In 'Dr. Pitcairn's Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats,' the author (a vet) talks about the danger of food allergies for dogs, but makes no mention of specific foods that are poisonious. I don't know much about this subject and would like to see more science backing these facts. AnandaDaldal (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.136.235 (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Brian Whitlock and Jordan Dale Lucas

The articles Brian Whitlock and Jordan Dale Lucas have been nominated for deletion. You might want to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Jordan Dale Lucas beat his cat. Not to mention, this talk page is specifically for the article Dog. You may want to put a notice about Brian Whitlock at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Canine Embryology

I assume this would be the correct article to put any information on canine pregnancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Canine reproduction would probably be more appropriate. — Reatlas (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Homocentric attitude

I find this below deeply homocentric and lacking any recent knowledge of wolves. It treats domestication as a likely accidental event, more to do with advantages to wolves than to humans, assumes wolves had a hard time without men, and just couldn't wait to hang around their camps waiting for the odd scrap of food they might throw away. This is arrogant homocentric nonsense; the wolf is the prime predator, it isn't and never was a beggar beholden to men for sustenance. It was much more the other way round, although wolves weren't as proactive in helping the white man as native peoples were, perhaps they sensed the deep psychopathy. They certainly much earlier aided the early hominids in surviving and learning to hunt.

'Early roles

Wolves, and their dog descendants, would have derived significant benefits from living in human camps—more safety, more reliable food, lesser caloric needs, and more chance to breed.[50] They would have benefited from humans' upright gait that gives them larger range over which to see potential predators and prey, as well as color vision that, at least by day, gives humans better visual discrimination.[50] Camp dogs would also have benefitted from human tool use, as in bringing down larger prey and controlling fire for a range of purposes.[50]'

This is not based on known facts. Wolves derived [and derive] no benefits from humans, they had reliable food, they were the apex predator and controlled their numbers according to food availability [which before man was plentiful] so 'more chance to breed' is utter nonsense. Also the 'benefited from humans' upright gait' is conjecture without any basis and contradicted by what is known about wolves and their symbiotic relationship with corvids, mainly ravens, which were/are allowed to feed on the kill without interference, play with the pups, and are generally tolerated - even tweaking adult's tails playfully at times. They provide[d] the aerial spotter the wolves lacked, and directed them to herds of prey animals often out of sight over the horizon and invisible to men too. This has been observed countless times. They also brought down prey of all sizes such as bison, musk ox, elk and reindeer, what larger prey did men 'help' them with?

'Humans would also have derived enormous benefit from the dogs associated with their camps.[51] For instance, dogs would have improved sanitation by cleaning up food scraps.[51] Dogs may have provided warmth, as referred to in the Australian Aboriginal expression "three dog night" (an exceptionally cold night), and they would have alerted the camp to the presence of predators or strangers, using their acute hearing to provide an early warning.[51]'

Of course humans 'derived enormous benefit from the dogs associated with their camps' that's why they took wolf pups to raise. Duh.

'Anthropologists believe the most significant benefit would have been the use of dogs' sensitive sense of smell to assist with the hunt.[51] The relationship between the presence of a dog and success in the hunt is often mentioned as a primary reason for the domestication of the wolf, and a 2004 study of hunter groups with and without a dog gives quantitative support to the hypothesis that the benefits of cooperative hunting was an important factor in wolf domestication.[52]'

The 'benefits of cooperative hunting' was the reason why men domesticated wolves and copied their hunting skills, with assistance from wolves. They then set out to wipe out the wolves, their competitors.

'The cohabitation of dogs and humans would have greatly improved the chances of survival for early human groups, and the domestication of dogs may have been one of the key forces that led to human success.[53]'

It was THE key element in early human success at hunting, a skill that isn't instinctive in a monkey. Canids are also much faster than hominids, they can match the speed of prey animals [and exceed their endurance] while humans can't. PetePassword (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting stuff (though not sure what "white men" and "native peoples" have to do with canid domestication). Do you have some sources you could cite for all this? If you don't know how to do them in a Wikipedia citation format, just copying and pasting links to Websites or details of published works here would be great. Barnabypage (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
PetePassword, being human-oriented is anthropocentric; homocentrism has a different definition unrelated to humanity. Do some more research: we're descended from apes (though both apes & monkeys have strong hunting instincts) our species were "native" hunter-gatherers when canines were first domesticated. Even when a species does fine in the wild, it generally will benefit from domestication (provided it isn't as food); describing how canines benefited explains why the genetics needed for it flourished long-term rather than continuing to appear only sporadically. —xyzzymage 01:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: merge "temperament test" as a section

Suggestion: I ran across the dog temperament test article earlier today, and it seems to me like the topic would work better as (and benefit from being) a sub-section of this one than as the stand-alone piece it is now. —xyzzymage 02:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Do dogs mimic human sounds?

I'm not saying they understand it but stray dogs seem to uncannily mimic sounds humans make when chasing dogs away. Dogs in South India seem to be doing this ("out" sound like a common bark but the language here is distinct). It's frightening. The dog really sounded like "Dae, Dae, Dae, Dae!. 61.3.190.42 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Bumpinthenight

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013

There is a rumor started by the movie Shaun of the Dead that dogs cannot look up when Shaun says: "Yea, but Big Al says dogs can't look up." This is untrue. DogMaster1985 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this article already has over 9500 words and occupies nearly half a gigabyte. Let's not waste space on false rumours. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

in Dog#Vision it is said humans have 180° FOV. Its 120° actually [6]. Please fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.3.145 (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogs

Dogs are one of the oldest known friends of the human race. Dogs are surprisingly a close realative to dolphins because they are both friendly, social, and nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.161.189 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

39.45.36.238 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

DOGS

Dogs are probably the pet that nearly every household will have. they are sometimes known as "mans best friend". this is because dogs are loyal, loving companions, and they can make a great family member in no time. having a dog or a puppy is very useful. did you know that dog can smell cancer, so can save their owners lives. they have also been known in the past to have saved toddlers and babies from drowning, as well as other dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.151.135 (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dog is not a sub-species of the Gray Wolf

Currently reads: The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)[2][3] is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammalian order Carnivora.

My Comment: The domestic dog is now known to be a descendent of an extinct European wolf.

Last November Dr Olaf Thalmann, together with a team of international researchers from 20 universities across Europe and the Americas, published a paper titled “Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs”. The team analyzed the DNA taken from the skeletons of 18 prehistoric wolves and prehistoric dogs found in Eurasia and the New World, along with a wide range of modern dogs and wolves. The DNA of all modern dogs is most closely related to a European wolf that is now extinct. Molecular dating suggests domestication occurred between 18,800 to 32,100 years ago. Citation: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871#aff-1

Also, its scientific classification appears in the table to the right of the article entry and therefore can be removed from the text.

Wording should be amended to read: The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)[2][3] is a sub-species of the wolf (Canis lupus).

Coding should read: The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)[2][3] is a sub-species of the wolf Canis Lupus.

Additionally, this webpage has become over-sized and does not encapsulate the rapid changes in dog research that has taken place over the last few years. I recommend that sections of it be redistributed into new articles that are not protected in order to keep up with the pace of change - much of the research cited on this webpage is already super-ceded. Can you point me to any team or group that is collaborating on developing this topic, please?

William of Aragon (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Dogs come from Europe

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/14/health/dogs-domesticated-europe/index.html?hpt=hp_bn13

needs to be in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.204 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend is correct - all dogs come from an extinct European wolf. Last November Dr Olaf Thalmann, together with a team of international researchers from 20 universities across Europe and the Americas, published a paper titled “Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs”. The team analyzed the DNA taken from the skeletons of 18 prehistoric wolves and prehistoric dogs found in Eurasia and the New World, along with a wide range of modern dogs and wolves. The DNA of all modern dogs is most closely related to a European wolf that is now extinct. Molecular dating suggests domestication occurred between 18,800 to 32,100 years ago.

The reference is found here: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871#aff-1 I will suggest an amendment to the webpage shortly.

William of Aragon (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding information to the 'Dog' article about mythology / religion

Hey. I wanted to contribute to the article, but it seems to be closed.

I wanted to expand the 'mythology' section, to add under 'Hindu Mythology' a small paragraph about the popular Hindu deity Kala Bhairava, whose 'vehicle' (vahana) is the dog -due to the 'unclean' nature of the dog, and how Bhairava, being beyond duality, encompasses both clean and unclean into Himself- as well as how the dog (nocturnal and feral in urban India) as the vehicle of Bhairava is seen as a quasi 'friendly demon' in such cities as Varanasi (whose tutelary deity is Kala Bhairava), and how the dog is then subsequently respected.

How do i 'apply' for the right to update this wiki?

The Archmage of the Aether (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)tAotA, 30-12-13


Perhaps you could start your own Wikipedia webpage on Dog Mythology, and leave this Dog section to science. There is a whole lot more research that needs to go on here.

William of Aragon (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixing a typo "species" written when you meant "biological family"

At the very beginning, when this page refers to the disambiguation, it says "For related species known as 'dogs', see Canidae"

I believe you meant to write "biological family", not "Species", as "Canidae" is the biological family -- the *species* would be "Canis lupus", Canidae is the biological family, and the *genus* would be "Canis". If you are redirecting to "Canidae", you are referring to a biological family. I suggest this typo be fixed quickly, as it is one that can be embarrassing. 99.110.76.28 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Sophia

Other species related to Canis lupus are part of the family Canidae. What's wrong with that? Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)



I concur with Ian. The species and family are given both in the first paragraph and the scientific classification table on the right of the screen, and can be removed from the first line altogether. Plus, by your own definition all dogs are domestic, so remove that word. It currently reads:

This article is about the domestic dog. For related species known as "dogs", see Canidae. For other uses, see Dog (disambiguation).

Amend to: This article is about the dog. For other uses, see Dog (disambiguation).

Coding should be:

This page is about the dog. For other uses, see Dog (disambiguation).

William of Aragon (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't use the ambiguous word on its own to specify one use of it - "about the domestic animal" if you like. Ian Dalziel (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I understand - many thanks to Yorkshire.

William of Aragon (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dogs and dolphins

Dogs are surprisingly related to DOLPHINS. they are both social, friendly, and have both helped the world one way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas story (talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Any mammal is surprising like any other mammal - we all shared a common ancestor and our brains appear to be wired much the same way. Your statement may be true, but what would it add to this article I wonder? "Helped the world in one way or another" might lead to further development of some text.

Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

toxic foods

Hi,

I would like to add a short table of common foods that are harmful to dogs with 3 columns (food, symptoms, suggested criteria for contacting vet or Poison Control) to section 5.5.1. Sources are ASPCA and FDA.

I would like to add section 5.5.2 with a short table of common house plants that are harmful to dogs with 2 columns (plant with link to wikipedia topic on plant, symptoms) and contact information for ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center. Source is ASPCA.. I would also like to include a link to a more comprehensive list of toxic and non-toxic plants at the ASPCA.

I haven't submitted anything to Wikipedia before. So please let me know if this is not the appropriate place or process...

Regards,

Wedwards62 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Hello Wedwards62. You might start by creating a Talk Page, where wikipedians can talk to you, rather than us hijacking this person's entry under Dogs and Dolphins! If you like you can create a user page to say something about yourself. At some time, I understand that an Administrator will come along and see your comment here and provide advice/action it. In the meantime, we are both waiting. There is quite a backlog for Administrators, so please be patient. You might like to commence some further research of your own - on what basis is the ASPCA saying these things? Who undertook research to prove that these things are in fact facts. William of Aragon (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wedwards. Probably the best thing to do would be to take a look at Dog_health#Toxic_substances and add there any information that is missing, rather than duplicating it in this article. You can do this - or anything on Wikipedia! - without waiting for an administrator. Barnabypage (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2014

'sup bro, 67.186.217.106 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done. No request. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone please edit this sentence!

Under Taxonomy:

Among these were two that later experts have been widely used for domestic dogs as a species: Canis domesticus and, most predominantly, Canis familiaris, the "common" or "familiar" dog.[23]

I don't have an account. I can't fix it. 70.160.63.63 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks I'll look into it Lastitem (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

article seems to be missing modern research

It seems there's been a lot of very recent research on dog genetics not include in the article. Research about the time period when dogs were domesticated. Lastitem (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we. .?

Pissy dog
Pissy dog

Hi. Can we use this pic. anywhere in the article? This behavior of dogs all over the world is very curious and funny.:) Rayabhari (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

dogs can't feel guilt

I recommend a part where it explains that researchers say dogs can't feel guilt.

Source: http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/28/3316662/dogs-feel-no-shame-despite-how.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.161.46 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

References at the start of this article

There appears to be no subject matter linked to footnote Reference 1? Footnote Reference 1 appears to link to the same source as footnote Reference 2? Footnote Reference 3 is a bit dated now and suggest that this be removed.William of Aragon (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the wolf a proto-dog, or is it actually a feral dog.

The wolf and the domestic dog are fu;ly interbreedable, and are in that sense, the same specie. The history of the domestic dog and the wolf separate about 10,000 years into history. This coincides with the peak of the last ice-age, when Homo Neanderthalis was driven out of the Northlands, mainly by the Atlantic coastline, but also by the Pacific. This exodus was an emergency operation, and many were lost by the wayside. Among the lost were the dogs these people had used as hunting associates. My proposal is that some of these survived, and became feral. As for the humans, blue eyes, large noses, fair hair, and white skin, is all that is left of Homo Neanderthalis. The minute fraction of survivors of the exodus were forced to interbreed with the dark skinned Africans they found when they reached Africa. So we have a coincidence: the tiny survival of some Neanderthal characteristics in Humans, indicating interbreeding, and the deviation of Domestic dogs from Wolves. Both occurred about 10,000 years ago. Because the domestic dog is genetically indistinguishable from the grey wolf, it cannot be fair to call the wolf a proto-dog. They are all Canis Lupus. The proto-dog must be an earlier specie, and we must go back at least another 10,000 years, possible 100,000 years to find this proto-dog, possibly the African hunting dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveat168 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dogs appeared on the record about 31,000 years ago (Olaf Thalmann, 2013). There is evidence of people and their wolves living together in caves in what is now the Czech Republic during the Ice Age 50,000 years ago. Some time between the two periods, the dog developed.William of Aragon (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

Please change X to Y X: As pets

A British Bulldog shares a day at the park.

A young male border terrier with a raccoon toy. "The most widespread form of interspecies bonding occurs between humans and dogs"[58] and the keeping of dogs as companions, particularly by elites, has a long history.[61] (As a possible example, at the Natufian culture site of Ain Mallaha in Israel, dated to 12,000 BC, the remains of an elderly human and a four-to-five-month-old puppy were found buried together).[62] However, pet dog populations grew significantly after World War II as suburbanization increased.[61] In the 1950s and 1960s, dogs were kept outside more often than they tend to be today[63] (using the expression "in the doghouse" to describe exclusion from the group signifies the distance between the doghouse and the home) and were still primarily functional, acting as a guard, children's playmate, or walking companion. From the 1980s, there have been changes in the role of the pet dog, such as the increased role of dogs in the emotional support of their human guardians.[64] People and dogs have become increasingly integrated and implicated in each other's lives,[65] to the point where pet dogs actively shape the way a family and home are experienced.[66]

Y: As pets 150000 homeless dogs are killed every year in the streets on average of a occidental country.

A British Bulldog shares a day at the park.

A young male border terrier with a raccoon toy. "The most widespread form of interspecies bonding occurs between humans and dogs"[58] and the keeping of dogs as companions, particularly by elites, has a long history.[61] (As a possible example, at the Natufian culture site of Ain Mallaha in Israel, dated to 12,000 BC, the remains of an elderly human and a four-to-five-month-old puppy were found buried together).[62] However, pet dog populations grew significantly after World War II as suburbanization increased.[61] In the 1950s and 1960s, dogs were kept outside more often than they tend to be today[63] (using the expression "in the doghouse" to describe exclusion from the group signifies the distance between the doghouse and the home) and were still primarily functional, acting as a guard, children's playmate, or walking companion. From the 1980s, there have been changes in the role of the pet dog, such as the increased role of dogs in the emotional support of their human guardians.[64] People and dogs have become increasingly integrated and implicated in each other's lives,[65] to the point where pet dogs actively shape the way a family and home are experienced.[66]

Illian14yy (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reliable sources: the foundation of protection of animales in Spain

Not done for now: Your requested content might have a place in this article but not in the location requested and not without a better link to a reliable source. —KuyaBriBriTalk 01:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Canis familiaris

The domestic dog should once again be recognized as its own species, Canis familiaris, rather than as a subspecies of the Grey Wolf. The classification of the domestic dog within Canis lupus is not at all unequivocal, and in fact, a lot of the recent genetic research has shown that domestic dogs actually are not descended from wolves, and instead belong to their own, distinct species: Canis familiaris. So it would be really good if someone edited this article, and updated that information (or at least presented both sides of the debate). Do The Roar (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This article currently contains a Taxonomy subsection which addresses that subtopic. If there is in fact debate about this, WP:DUE specifies that this article should represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

From the notes on the "wolf" article:

In the past, the prevailing view on gray wolf packs was that they consisted of individuals vying with each other for dominance, with dominant gray wolves being referred to as the "alpha" male and female, and the subordinates as "beta" and "omega" wolves. This terminology was first used in 1947 by Rudolf Schenkel of the University of Basel, who based his findings on researching the behavior of captive gray wolves. This view on gray wolf pack dynamics was later popularized by L. David Mech in his 1970 book The Wolf. He formally disavowed this terminology in 1999, explaining that it was heavily based on the behavior of captive packs consisting of unrelated individuals, an error reflecting the once prevailing view that wild pack formation occurred in winter among independent gray wolves. Later research on wild gray wolves revealed that the pack is usually a family consisting of a breeding pair and its offspring of the previous 1–3 years.[82] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.74.188.234 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If anyone had been thinking that wolf packs were not usually families, Mech has put that to rest. There is no real reason for such packs to engage in much violence because the hierarchy has been established since the birth of the puppies. However, this does not mean that a wolf pack is an anarchistic. There are Alphas and Omegas and they regularly engage in dominance/submission behaviors that are used to avoid violence. http://1onewolf.com/lakota/Wolf/Images/bodlang.jpg If an outsider wants to join the pack, that's going to be very difficult, but it can happen. Chrisrus (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

68.104.58.216 (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC) a dog has decended from hippos in the last 1,000 years

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Reatlas (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

New lede

I think the lede image should be changed to File:Collage of Nine Dogs.jpg, since it shows the diversity of dog breeds. The cat article also has a collage and cats aren't nearly as diverse in shape and size as dogs. LittleJerry (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Gray Wolf or European Wolf?

This article says that dogs are descended from the now extinct European wolf, yet the article on gray wolves says that all dogs are descendents of gray wolves, which is it? 123.243.215.92 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

European wolf is a subspecies of gray wolf, and they are not extinct. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


You appear to have missed the point altogether.

Thalmann stated that the research indicates that the ancestor of the dog was a now-extinct European wolf-like canid. At least that is Thalmann's university's understanding of his contribution: "It also became apparent that no extant wolf population is more closely related to modern dogs than the extinct specimens suggesting that the population of European wolves that ultimately gave rise to today’s dogs has gone extinct." http://www.utu.fi/en/news/articles/Pages/mans-best-friend-originated-in-europe.aspx Also his editors: "The data suggest that an ancient, now extinct, central European population of wolves was directly ancestral to domestic dogs."

The European Wolf may not be extinct, but the one in the study was.

There are two schools of thought in this debate, one is that the Gray Wolf is the father of the dog, and the other is that he is the uncle of the dog.

I can only cite what the research shows; it would appear that there are some who want to interpret that research to suit their own ends. William of Aragon (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead Request

The lead sentence currently reads: "The domestic dog ... is the 18-31,000 year old descendant of a now extinct European Wolf". The relevant material in the source cited for this sentence (located here: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871 ) reads: "The precise details of the domestication and origins of domestic dogs are unclear." and: "The data suggest that an ancient, now extinct, central European population of wolves was directly ancestral to domestic dogs.".

"The data suggest" and "the precise details are unclear" are not conclusive or factual statements. The wording of the current lead is unrepresentative of the statements in the source and should either be prefaced with "imprecise data suggests", something to that effect, or should be removed. I would like consensus on this before making a bold edit, and I thank you in advance for helping me with this. --Jacksoncw (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to make the change and simply removed that part of the sentence. --Jacksoncw (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


See my comment above under Gray Wolf above. None of this DNA research is conclusive, that is why for the past 15 years researchers have talked about "indications" or "data suggests". All good scientists should do that because the landscape is changing quickly as the tools develop.

Sorry to get back so late; I have only just discovered talk pages. Regards, William

William of Aragon (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad source

http://barkingorders.net/generalInfo/?target=85&entry=A realistic look into the eyesight of a dog is full of complete nonsense and should not be used as a source.--2A00:1028:83D4:436:19B3:828C:12:4527 (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Dger (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

197.245.61.57 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

alex was heare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.249.29.177 (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dog Page - History and Evolution

I propose that the appropriate parts of the History and Evolution chapter of the Dog page be transferred to the Origin of the Domestic Dog page. There is little point in having a Main Article link through to the Origin of the Domestic Dog page, then go on and continue to build a separate undertaking. Once this is done, our resources will be better focused, the Dog page will be smaller in size, and the material then all residing on the Origin of the Domestic Dog page will need to be reviewed/updated/culled. William of Aragon (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) l

Can we at least get a short summary added back to the main page? Most people aren't looking for the full details on the Origin of the Domestic Dog pages, just a few quick facts.

I am always open to suggestion, and will add a few. Please let me know what you think of them. Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence sounds like it was written by a third grader.

"The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a canid that is known as man's best friend."

How on Earth does that fit Wikipedia's encyclopedic styling? A colloquialism mentioned in the first sentence? That's like something that could be listed under trivia or not at all. How about "The domestic dog (Canis lupis familiaris) is a canid domesticated by humans." "The domestic dog (Canis lupis familiaris) is a subspecies of the Grey Wolf domesticated by humans."

The first sentence should describe what the subject is about. It shouldn't give some "fun-fact" little detail about the subject's nick name. Come on. You should learn that in freaking middle school. And on a LOCKED article???

It's reasons like this people don't take Wikipedia seriously as a source of information. Whoever crafted that sentence should be ashamed of themselves. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, we are happy to hear your ideas for amendment, but any amendment will need to be agreed through consensus. This is the place to make that happen. My take:
  1. Read the Origin section - the dog is not a descendant of the Gray wolf. The fossil of the ancestor has yet to be found, and the Gray wolf is the dog's sister.
  2. It is not clear that dogs have been domesticated by humans, that is an assumption made by humans. (There are an estimated 700 million dogs on this planet and each one will have a go at you if you should venture onto their owners property after dark - that is not domesticated!) However, I grant that this is the prevailing view.
  3. The reason the lead sentence reads the way it does is because in the past everybody had their own take on what it should be - this was a compromise. Time has now moved on, and I agree that it requires revisiting.
  4. From my own point of view, I would be happy with something along the lines of "The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a canid that, based on genetic testing as of January 2014, has been living with we humans for 11,000 - 16,000 years.[8]
The first sentence of any Wikipedia article should be a general, one sentence description of what the thing is. It would be like if the first sentence of the article on Nashville read "Nashville is a city where it is said the stars stay up all night." Absolutely idiotic. In no way fitting of an encyclopedia of any kind. I wouldn't even support this type of writing in Simple English Wikipedia. Let alone the real thing. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You might find that you get a better response from other editors by toning it down a little, refer to Wikipedia Policy WP:CIVIL
It's hard to be civil when the internet's top source of information begins adopting the writing style of a Special-Ed coloring book. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
These are only my views, let us see what other editors think. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Franklin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord/fossilization/fossilization.htm
  3. ^ http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/foods-are-hazardous-dogs
  4. ^ http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm208365.htm
  5. ^ http://www.petmd.com/dog/nutrition/evr_dg_raw_bones_or_cooked_bones
  6. ^ http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/dogs-plant-list
  7. ^ http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/17-poisonous-plants
  8. ^ Freedman, Adam H.; Gronau, Ilan; Schweizer, Rena M.; Ortega-Del Vecchyo, Diego; Han, Eunjung; Silva, Pedro M.; Galaverni, Marco; Fan, Zhenxin; Marx, Peter; Lorente-Galdos, Belen; Beale, Holly; Ramirez, Oscar; Hormozdiari, Farhad; Alkan, Can; Vilà, Carles; Squire, Kevin; Geffen, Eli; Kusak, Josip; Boyko, Adam R.; Parker, Heidi G.; Lee, Clarence; Tadigotla, Vasisht; Siepel, Adam; Bustamante, Carlos D.; Harkins, Timothy T.; Nelson, Stanley F.; Ostrander, Elaine A.; Marques-Bonet, Tomas; Wayne, Robert K.; Novembre, John (16 January 2014). "Genome Sequencing Highlights Genes Under Selection and the Dynamic Early History of Dogs". PLOS Genetics. 10 (1). PLOS Org: e1004016. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016. PMC 3894170. PMID 24453982. Retrieved December 8, 2014.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
I usually like to remove comments, such as those that are made by Nikki Lee 1999. Having a "fun-fact" is definitely encyclopedic if it is backed by historical and traditional records. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. It's fine. Not as the first sentence of the article. I think Wikipedia is a great source of information. But it's reasons like this that people call it garbage. I really have a dificult time believing that the sentence was written by somebody with a high school education. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikki Lee 1999:, whether it is "hard" or not, please work on communicating civilly. It is indeed a requirement for editing here. That said, I agree that the first sentence of this article is terrible, and does not do a good job of meeting our MOS guideline for the first sentence of an article. How about change the first two sentences from,
"The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a canid that is known as man's best friend. The dog was the first domesticated animal and has been widely kept as a working, hunting, and pet companion."
to, "The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a canid that was the first domesticated animal. Since their domestication 11 to 16 thousand years ago, dogs have been widely kept as working, hunting, and pet companions." VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Association of Canids with Hominids

The common assumption is made that the association of Man with Dog goes back to Homo Sapiens Sapiens only. This is not supported. Neither does the genetic evidence support this.

The association is much older, possibly back to -200ka, with the split between Homo Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis. Possibly even earlier, to Homo Habilis. One reference found, see here:

To read the contents, click on the url below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveat168 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

http://theacademy.typepad.com/files/coevolution03.pdf

Some believe that the rift between Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and Homo Sapiens was partially healed in post Ice Age Europe, about -10ka. Pure Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis becoming extinct about that time. The hybrid of the subspecies Neanderthalis, and the mother species is believed by some to be the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, at least, the White European branch. The suggestion is here made that split between grey wolf, and modern dog is about of this era, and may have the same cause. That is, an isolated population partially reintegrating, and, and the remainder failing to re-integrate, but in the case of the wolf, not becoming extinct, but becoming feral. As the above post asserts, the ancestor is older than grey wolf. If we are pushing the clock back further, by a factor of 20 or more, then the link with African Hunting Dogs, possibly hyenas is a possibility. My personal thoughts allow that as early as benobo type hominids, these chimp like creatures associated with African Hunting Dogs, to their common benefit. The Dogs kept the dangerous big cats at bay, and the abilities of the humanoids to move in the forest canopy forced prey creatures onto the ground for the dogs to take. My view is that without this association, the danger of big cats would have kept them tree bound. I believe the association of Dog and Man is as old as Man, taking us back then to before -5Ma.

This is the first learned reference I found. There may be others. Whereas it does not go quite as far as I feel, that is, the Wolf is not separate from dogs, but rather, is a feral dog which has reverted to wild almost completely. It is then, a kind of Dingo. The author of the item referenced considers that the association between Dog and Man is as old as Man. We are here talking -6Ma, not just a tiny -16ka. The latter date is for when, due to some disaster, a pack of dogs was abandoned as a severe cold snap took hold, wiping out large populations in the extreme Arctic, like as caught several well preserved mammoths.

Dave at 168 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to read any citation that says that Homo sapiens sapiens is a descendant, or split from, Homo neanderthalis. Homo sapiens sapiens originated in Africa. Their common ancestor may have been Homo heidelbergensis. There was some admixture between Neanderthals and non-Sub-Saharan Africans who still carry between 2-4% Neanderthal DNA - that is most of humanity, and "White European Branch" has little to do with it. William Harris • talk • 03:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

Should the first sentence be the domestic dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf? Editor abcdef (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This comes from a revert which I made. I'm no expert but, for purposes of discussion, see #Gray Wolf or European Wolf? above. Also see much discussion about this at Talk:Origin of the domestic dog. At a minimum, this article needs to avoid contradicting the Origin of the domestic dog article. Aside from technical issues, I see that you have unreverted my revert; I have undone this. Please consider this the D phase of WP:BRD. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello All. My colleague (and at one time adversary) Mario on the Gray Wolf page has now removed from that page any reference to the wolf being the ancestor of the dog, and the subheading there called "Relationship to the dog" has been a joint undertaking by us working together in concert.
I will save you both from having to wade through the Origin of the domestic dog, Genetic Evidence, both Thalmann (2013) and Freedman (2014). Looking at the mDNA of the dog, the extant gray wolf, and extinct canid fossils, the derived genetic tree indicates that the dog is not a descendent of the extant gray wolf but is her sister. The dog descended from an now-extinct "wolf-like canid". We have not found a fossil of the ancestor, but we have found fossils of its cousins from caves in Europe. We should not say that it is a "European Wolf" because that is a sub-species of Canis lupis. An extict wolf from Europe is more appropriate, or even better, what the researchers refer to as wolf-like canid that once lived in Europe.
It is not clear if the ancestor was Canis lupis or something else as we then get into a debate about what constitutes a species, and evolutionary biologists prefer to focus on the numbers of the DNA code rather than - what is to them non-relevant - 18th century Latin taxonomies. If you look under the Taxonomy sub-heading on the Dog page, second paragraph, there was never consensus that the dog should have been classified Canis lupus familiaris in the first place. None of the researchers will propose any change in this classification until they have the fossil of the ancestor in their hands and they can be completely sure what they are saying. Regards, William Harris (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with evolution, or with the origin of the domesticated dog. The fact of the matter is, Canis lupis familiarus IS a subspecies of Grey Wolf. That is how it is classified. And until that classification changes, the article should reflect that fact. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not a matter of fact, please read under Taxonomy. Just because one publication in North America reflects it without any consultation with the scientific world, that does not make it a fact. Some researchers still publish papers on Canis familiaris. Additionally, based on the latest DNA technology, Freedman et al (2014) indicated that the Gray wolf is the dog's sister - so Canis lupus familiaris is inappropriate. Given those two facts, how would you like Wikipedia to respond? William Harris • talk • 03:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I believe that it should. It already says "Canis Lupis familiarus" in parenthesis in the first sentence. A scientifically literate reader would understand that that means subspecies of Canis Lupis. However, not every reader is scientifically literate, so it would be nice to reiterate it as the beginning sentence. Better than the 1st grade level garbage we have now on a locked article. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Citing" vs. "According to"; 2008 info vs. 2015 info

I've unreverted the reversion of my tweaking "According to" to "Citing". My unrevert flouts WP:BRD, but it would be both incorrect and nonsensical to say, "According to a 2008 study, the [CDC] estimated in 2015 ...". The sentence as it stands, though, is overly complicated and its focus on the figure reported in 2015 by the CDC being a figure from a 2008 study is a bit off the point of the section. Perhaps the initial sentence (and the CDC cite) ought to simply be removed in favor of the second sentence giving info based on a cited 2015 study. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I like using the CDC as a ref, as it makes the material in the study more easily verifiable. However, I don't believe the CDC needs to be mentioned in the body of text in the article. I'm indifferent on if the study and CDC are combined in a single ref or are listed separately. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dogs can talk

Could someone please add the fact dogs have been shown to be capable of reproducing human speech to the article, because for some reason I can't edit it.

Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHFcIod7yis, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCRDskZrUMU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.107 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Youtube sources are not considered as suitable sources. This should not be added.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539781/Defiant-husky-Blaze-hates-kennel-learnt-say-no-owner-tries-bed.html

Also, how come I can't edit the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.107 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally will not make the edit because the dog is not talking, it is simply making a noise that some people believe sounds like human speech. I think you can not make an edit because the article is semi-protected. This means that only people with a user-name can make an edit.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This article in particular is semi-protected so that vandals - or well intentioned but uninitiated people like yourself - cannot make edits as they please. DrChrissy is correct in that you need to cite sources, refer to Wikipedia policy WP:CITE. You have found something on the web that has attracted your attention but it needs some scientific basis that you can cite to support what you are saying. A search-engine will find that for you if you try, something like this Scientific American article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-dogs-can-talk/ It is not about blocking people, it is about process.
Now you have two choices (1) ask someone like me to make the edit on your behalf, or (2) if you have a pet topic that you have a passion for, why not get a login as a Wikipedia editor and make a start on something of interest. It is more productive, creative and intellectually rewarding than watching TV, you will meet - and argue with - some interesting people from around the globe, but I warn you now that it can become a time-consuming hobby. To get started, people will help you on the Talk Pages if you ask - the world is listening. How would you like to proceed? Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

How would I go about getting a consensus on whether or not to include these links (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/dog-bark-says-hello-video_n_6598028.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539781/Defiant-husky-Blaze-hates-kennel-learnt-say-no-owner-tries-bed.html)? No scientific website seems to cover these, yet they both seem too critical pieces of information to simply exclude from this article. Additionally, there are plenty of non-scientific references in this article, and no one seems to be intent on removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You may want to propose a different summary, if it is not fully confirmed yet, we shall still state and credit the actual research. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello SQMeaner, I am glad that you got a login, and this is the place to get consensus. (When you posted this, many hundreds of people around the world that have a "watch" in place on this page were alerted. Most will not have in interest in the subject of dog communication and therefore will not resond. Others will respond over the next week or so when they have the time.) You are correct when you say that "there are plenty of non-scientific references in this article" and we have to make a start somewhere, which is why my colleague OccultZone directed you to this page.
I suggest we start by giving the reader some context, and the Scientific American article I cited above helps, where the noted Professor of Animal Behavior Stanley Coren says: Owner hears the dog making a sound that resembles a phrase, says the phrase back to the dog, who then repeats the sound and is rewarded with a treat. Eventually the dog learns a modified version of her original sound. Dogs have limited vocal imitation skills, so these sounds usually need to be shaped by selective attention and social reward. In a video, a pug says, 'I love you' and it's very cute, but the pug has no idea what it means. "If dogs could talk, they would tell you, 'I'm just in it for the cookies." The pug citation could be dropped in after the 'I love you'. The husky after 'cookies'. The Scientific American citation would go in at the end of the paragraph. This would link some interesting, although questionable to some, footage with what a reputable source says. What is already there on the Dog page could be pushed down to the second paragraph. The important thing to come out of this is that although it is not talking, it certainly is communicating. Your thoughts please?William Harris • talk • 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that any of these edits are made on the Talking animal page. This has the space and material to make a critical appraisal of "talking". The Dog article could contain a very brief summary with a link such as Talking animal#Dog.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Very well. If it's alright with everyone, I'm going to go with this.SQMeaner (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a very good suggestion. I note that the videos discussed here are already cited there. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
undid the recent addition. Yes, dogs and other animals can be trained to mimic human words. However, America's Funniest Videos and youtube stuff aren't WP:RS for this article. Vsmith (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
How so? I've been looking over the rules and nothing I did seemed to be in violation of them. Could you please go into detail on why you think my edit deserved to be undone?SQMeaner (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Vsmith I do not believe that you should be stopping SQMeaner from adding a link to another page on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with the quality of the other page then you have my best wishes in amending that other page and improving its quality. Yes, WP:RS does state that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources", but my view on Talking animal#Dog is that these examples are used for illustrative purposes only, the main thrust of page is not based on them. (Although it could do with some further work.) SQMeaner there is a page on Dog communication which might be of interest to you. I look forward to the comments from others. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Er ... an unsourced one liner: There is some evidence dogs are able to imitate human vocalisations (see above). with a see also link to talking animal which was added to the start of the first paragraph of the communications section simply won't fly. It wasn't just adding a link to the see also section. That dogs can be trained to mimic human words is related to their intelligence and a bit about that could be added to the intelligence and behavior section if backed with WP:reliable sources. You suggested Dog communication page might be another possibility - although I'm not sure being trained to mimic human words is true communication. Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You removed more than just the first sentence, you could have left the link. The short sentence only needs the Scientific American reference I mentioned above added on the end, then it flies very well. I have also made an introduction to the Talking animal#Dog item to give it context. However, we shall see what others think. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes a bit about mimicing human words could be added to the communications or intelligence sections based on the Sci Am reference would work. Sorry I overlooked that earlier (I plead 5 AM lack of caffein for that :). Vsmith (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note regarding Youtube items. I study animal behaviour as a profession and enjoy writing about this on WP. Very often, a video is the best way of describing a behaviour so I find it rather frustrating when editors state that ALL Youtube videos are not allowed. I have used Youtube articles in the past when these present a behaviour that is either not reported or the written source is unreliable. For example, I posted a link to video on the Tool use by animals page to show a crow toboggoning down a snowy roof! So long as the description is objective and not open to interpretation, some Youtube videos are a suitable source. Unfortunately, in the current context, Talking dogs, they are usually not reliable. These videos usually have the owner suggesting what the dog is saying. If you can listen to the dog without such prompting, it is often impossible to understand what the dog is supposedly uttering.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better to link directly to the youtube videos showing the dogs making vocalisations or to articles (secondary sources) describing them, like the dailymail article linked to above?SQMeaner (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
These particular videos are poor quality, meant solely for humor, and aren't close to the threshold of being reliable sources. If you can find better sources, then the mention of imitating human sounds may be appropriate, but these particular videos aren't really usable from an encyclopedic standpoint. I notice you are also inserting the videos into Talking animal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and using that as a coatrack to add mentions into Dog communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (at least without the videos at that one). You are also in violation of WP:3RR in this article, which can result in your account being blocked. The quality of the material is clearly in dispute, get consensus before adding them again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Where did you get the impression the videos are meant 'solely for humor'? Also, what makes you think they're not 'reliable sources'? What rule in particular do you think the references I have posted have violated? I'm sorry if I violated the 3-revert rule. I'm just getting a little tired of people constantly undoing my edits without bothering to discuss them on the talk pages.SQMeaner (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this time the sources were updated to web articles about the YouTube videos. The website articles are still shaky as far as WP:RS is concerned, but I'm reverting my most recent revert so that these can get discussed further on the talk page here. To me, the HuffingtonPost article is trivial material beyond the video itself, and not meeting WP:RS. The DailyMail article at least provides some context and background, so is borderline to me. I would like to hear other opinions on that one.
As to "Where did you get the impression the videos are meant 'solely for humor'", the one video is in YouTube's category "Comedy", and the HuffingtonPost coverage of that same video is in the "Comedy" section of their website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I posted the wrong video, but this link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCRDskZrUMU) which is the original video of the dog saying what sounds to me like 'no' is posted in the 'pets and animals' category on youtube, not humour. The video which is posted in the 'comedy' category is the one with the dog saying what sounds to me like 'hello', but just because it's classified as comedy doesn't make it an unreliable source. I'm sure to most people it sounds like the dog is saying 'hello'. How you would verify this, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure most people would agree with me including it as proof dogs can imitate human vocalisations.SQMeaner (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
None of the links you have provided "prove" or purport to "prove" that dogs can imitate human speech. A dog making a vocalization that sounds roughly similar to human speech is not evidence of imitation. If you continue to push your point-of-view on this without providing a reliable source that backs up your assertion, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Do youtube and the daily mail and huffington post not count as a reliable sources? What would you say these videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHFcIod7yis and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCRDskZrUMU) show? Is there any way I can get a third party involved to mediate this dispute?SQMeaner (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Your question about the sources has already been answered above by Barek. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me the biggest problem people have with the references I've posted is that they're not 'reliable'. Could either you or Barek please point out what rule or rules exactly on Wikipedia I have violated and why exactly you think the videos/articles I have posted are unreliable and not proof dogs can imitate human vocalisations as I believe neither of you have done this so far, despite my repeated attempts to get both of you to answer these questions. I also provided a rebuttal to Barek's response to my post, which he has yet to answer as of this edit. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could get an impartial third party involved to mediate this dispute, as I am wary of arguing with a Wikipedia administrator for obvious reasons. Finally, I've left a message for you on the talk page of the Dog Communication article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
SQMeaner you appear to be new to Wikipedia, and your only error here was to rush ahead and make the change without waiting a couple of weeks before all interested parties had made their comments and a synthesis of ideas agreed - patience is the key. Your question on third party involvement was not answered: refer to content dispute. If you still wish to continue, read dispute resolution and if not satisfied Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Ask and ask for help at one of the relevant notice boards. That will be a slow and bureaucratic process and I would advise against continuing, because it may not go your way and there are plenty of other areas to improve. If you have a particular interest in human/dog communication, let me refer you to Dr Brian Hare and some of his more recent findings, little of which has made its way onto this page and someone needs to make a start on that. Don't let your first run-in with others deter you - they were once all new and have been there themselves, but appear to have forgotten. Regards, William Harris • talk • 19:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


Editors Vsmith, Barek, OhNoitsJamie and SQMeaner: You have not been asked to make a value judgment on whether you believe that dogs can mimic human vocalizations, nor if the citations were reliable. The footage is already cited on Talking animal#Dog and if you have issues with what is on that page then please feel free to action. Nobody is talking about citing them on the Dog page - I thought that was very clear from the first few comments here. You were asked if there should be a link from the Dog page to Talking animal#Dog. As yet, we have 3 in favor, 1 concerned about the lead-in sentence, and two that have positions as to what should be on another page. The consensus is currently 3:0 in favor with 1 seeking an appropriate lead-in sentence. Plus, it is way too early to be making any final decision, another week or so should do it. William Harris • talk • 22:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The first few comments here were all about adding the mention and refs to this article; the suggestion to instead link to Talking animal wasn't made until two weeks after the initial post, and even then, the mention added to this article by SQMeaner today is still using the videos as refs in this article where the mention was added.
As to the other article, I note the only reason the videos are posted there is because SQMeaner had initially also added the videos to that article as well as to this article. It makes sense to have a centralized discussion of the links, rather than fragmenting the discussion into multiple threads on multiple boards. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the current content on Talking animal#Dog. My issue was with the sentence "There is some evidence dogs can imitate human vocalisations" being added to Dog and Dog communication, as it's misleading and an oversimplification of what the the Scientific American article says. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I look forward to Barek's amendments on the Talking animal#Dog article and then the matter is ended, from my point of view. However, I have not yet seen any evidence of anyone volunteering to make these amendments. My position was to see a new editor treated fairly and with some sensitivity, and perhaps even some guidance. Who knows what contributions they might make to Wikipedia in the future, if they are not put of initially. William Harris • talk • 01:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what "amendments" you are suggesting, William Harris.
The current version of this article still has the problematic wording, and the current version still uses the disputed refs. So your comment above that "Nobody is talking about citing them on the Dog page" is incorrect. Is it safe to interpret your comments to be that you support removing those refs from this article? What of the wording in this article? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
My sincere apologies to both of you - I have not yet received the email that informs me that SQMeaner had recently posted to the Dog page!! I have just read the edits based on your comment, and cannot believe it! Over to you, Administrators. William Harris • talk • 02:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks William Harris, I was getting confused on the comments. I had initially reverted the most recent post by SQMeaner, but then had reverted myself to get further input on this talk page.
Ohnoitsjamie, do you have a suggestion on the phrasing that would be more in-line with the Scientific American article? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was still there either, and have removed it. It is WP:UNDUE weight to suggest that dogs can vocalize like humans on this page because of the existence of a handful of cute videos. It's already covered in Talking Animals, which is linked to Dog communication. This reminds of of a similar situation where on editor had an obsession about posting whether a crocodile or tiger would win in a fight in various articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Barek and OhNoitsJamie. We were talking at crossed purposes and I caused the confusion. I thought that you both were just adding a your comments and I did not realize that it was in response to further attempted edits. When I said above to SQMeaner that "...your only error here was to rush ahead and make the change without waiting..." I was referring to the edit reversed earlier by Vsmith and was not aware of your later reversals. I do not have a watch on the Dog communication page and was not aware of the efforts going on there. Once again, my apologies. I will have no more to do with this "entity". Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
(outdent) Sorry for the misunderstanding! Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Crossbreeds

I think that there should be something about dog crossbreeds. You know, like Labradoodles, Puggles, Labradingers, etc. DogLover 123

You will find them under List of dog crossbreeds. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dogs to replace sat nav...

"Dogs prefer, when they are off the leash and Earth's magnetic field is calm, to urinate and defecate with their bodies aligned on a north-south axis.[196]" Whoever added this failed to mention that such alignment occasionally causes the excrement to land on locked Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.241.190 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to counter the one given in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Observation provides the proof, no matter how unusual this may sound. William Harris • talk • 10:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it was me that added the source. The IP should look at the magnetoception article; it is full of (surprising) examples.DrChrissy (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the domestic dog

I think that the heading "Origin" (in this article) could benefit greatly from a copying-and-pasting exercise, with some minor editing, of the "Canids and humans" section in the Canidae article. The information contained in that section of the Canid article would not be out of place here - in fact it would be highly appropriate. Opinions please. Cruithne9 (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The additional material has been added to the "Origin" section of the article. Cruithne9 (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cruithne9, I am pleased that you enjoyed reading parts of the Origin of the domestic dog and associated links. However, as stated in the start of the edit of the Origin section, and which you may have not noticed: Note: What is reflected in this section must be in accord with what is on the "Origin of the domestic dog" page and the "Gray wolf" page (sub-heading "Relationship to the domestic dog"). Unless you have some subject knowledge on the topic, please don't tinker – if you are dog-kind then take your concerns to the "Origin of the domestic dog" Talk page, or wolf-kind take it to the "Gray wolf" Talk page – all of your queries will be eventually answered. Any change to this section is by agreement by the interested parties on the Talk:Origin of the domestic dog page.
Although of interest, the Zoukoudian wolf and the "Goyet cave dog" have yet to be proven to have any association with humans, although Germonpre argues strongly that the Goyet specimen might do (Shipman is quoting Germonpre) refer Origin of the domestic dog#Paleolithic "dog". The Chauvet cave "incident" may have been a child walking together with a "dog", or the dog (if it was a dog and not a wolf unknown to science) may have walked beside those tracks thousands of years later - we do not know as the boy's timing is based on the soot of the torch on the cave roof but we do not know about the "dog" (Derr is taking the work of Garcia). We need to stay away from book-writers conjecture and stay with what is stated in the original research documents by the scientists. Dog burials have little to do with the origin of the dog and therefore does not warrant reporting on the Dog page - it is well covered under Origin of the domestic dog#Archaeological evidence which is much wider than just Europe and North America. I hope this clarifies some things for you - happy to discuss further on my Talk page. Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi William Harris. Thank you for these helpful remarks.I had noticed the warning at the beginning of the section, and therefore posted, 10 days ago, the suggestion that more could be added on the "Dog" page about its origins, as what was there seems very bland to me, when there is so much of interest on the paleontological history of the dog, whose "origins" can be thought of both in terms of genetics, but also from the point of view of its association-evolution with humans. But I take your point entirely, and am glad that you reversed my edit. I'll move to your page to add another thought or two. Cruithne9 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015

Very tiny point; in the "Early roles" section:

They would have benefited from humans' upright gait that gives them larger range over which to see potential predators and prey, as well as color vision that, at least by day, gives humans better visual discrimination.[37] Camp dogs would also have benefitted from human tool use, as in bringing down larger prey and controlling fire for a range of purposes

It would be as well to spell the word the same way on each occasion. 

dogs ,jndakjqfjak are blueer thaana the yall robot jipy do

86.136.150.74 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I LOVE JOHN PIñON FOREVER <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.34.66 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the domestic dog - split

Hello All, a proposal has been made to split the Origin of the domestic dog page into two sections. One section would be relocated under what is currently the redirect that is titled Dog domestication, and this would include the current Sections 7-Domestication and 8-Convergent evolution. The first 6 Sections would remain under the Origin page. There would be links between the two. As this would mean a major undertaking relevant to dogs and their interested readers, I will be posting this proposal on the Talk:Dog page and the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs page. I seek editor's feedback on this proposal under Talk:Origin of the domestic dog#Origin of the domestic dog - split over the next fortnight. Please vote YES or NO under under Talk:Origin of the domestic dog#Origin of the domestic dog - split. Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello All, the decision was not to split the article. However, the article is now divided into two chapters - Dog Evolution and Dog Domestication. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Cat people and dog people

Please consider creating this proposed article on an extremely notable topic. (Sources are included).--Coin945 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to plan and action it; if you need a hand please give me a call on my Talk page. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Classification box

The Scientific Classification box is at odds with modern research, as well as the second paragraph of the article, and should be updated. Domestic dogs are no longer thought to be a subspecies of gray wolves.

This claim would need extraordinarily good sourcing. Changes in taxonomy like this are often proposed and "announced" based on this or that but end up being rejected, or accepted by cladists only, or whatever. We'd need a strong showing, e.g. in a literature review that such a change has mainstream acceptance in biological nomenclature. Some primary source research papers in journals, and some non-subject-matter-expert secondary sources are insufficient here (including for definitive statements in the article's main text). Try "According to [x] (201Y) ...".
Furthermore, even if the genetic science has become accepted after confirmation by additional research teams, that doens't mean that the taxonomic name has been changed and that the change has been accepted. That's an entirely different sourcing question. Not all cladistic reassessments are instantly adopted; see species problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mac, I regard Mammal Species of the World as outrageously out of date on a number of issues because its business model has failed. There was supposed to be a new release "coming shortly", according to its website - that was over 2 years ago. We need a 24/7 real-time database that is kept up to date, not some book published when someone can organize it, which clearly now they cannot. If zoologists want to regard the dog as a sub-species of Canis lupus, that is fine - evolutionary biologists do not based on a 3 billion letter DNA code. The real question now after Skoglund 2015 is what is a gray wolf? In my opinion - and one that now fits the data - is that a gray wolf is the collective name used to describe the extant subspecies of Canis lupus as observed by Linnaeus (give or take a bit of reclassifying). That is all. Back 40,000 ago when the ancestral dog, ancestral gray wolf and Taimir wolf triverged, what was there before that nobody knows as we have not found the fossil of the believed-common ancestor. In May, Greger Larson presented at the Australian National Museum as to why it is just as correct to regard the gray wolf (a large specialist) as descending from the dog line (a mid-sized generalist like its very distant ancestor the jackal). (PS: Please excuse my late response - I do not "watch" this page.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Health benefits

A couple of comments on this section. The start of the section casts considerable doubt on whether any health benefits actually exist, but later on it says "The health benefits of dogs can result from ..." as if it was conclusively known that health benefits do exist. "In addition, people with pet dogs took considerably more physical exercise than those with cats and those without pets. The group without pets exhibited no statistically significant changes in health or behaviour." -- It is not clear what "changes" refers to. "Changes" compared to what? 109.145.19.117 (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

They are the control group and measured at the end of the same period showed no significant changes in both their health or behaviour. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog/Archive_6&oldid=1136667039"