Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Portal:Dogs
 Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Archives of older discussions may be found here:
Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10



Contents

[edit] Here lies the problem

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

You sent this information directly to me.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[edit] Dr. Padgett's Health Survey's

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

http://www.bmd.org/health/surveyreport.html

http://www.bmd.org/health/surveyreport.html

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

http://kryptiks-lair.tripod.com/id2.html

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

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

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

http://www.beaconforhealth.org/Nsltr%20Aug%2001.pdf

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

http://www.kerryblues.info/index.html?http%3A//www.kerryblues.info/HEALTH/2004SCOPE.HTML

http://www.nsdtrc-usa.org/h&g.htm

http://www.gsmdca.org/health/healthsurveysummary.pdf

http://www.briardsbriards.com/breeding_healthier_dogs.htm

PLEASE NOTE;

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


More examples;

http://izebug.syr.edu/~gsbisco/cbhealth.html

http://www.chinook.org/health2.html

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that you read http://www.doginfomat.com/EXCHANGE_Summer2000.pdf

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

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

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

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

[edit] Here lies the REAL problem

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

TINA BARBER REPLIED

<personal attack removed>

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

TINA BARBER REPLIED THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID WITH ALL OF THE OTHER BREED CLUBS!!! MaShiloh 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

TINA REPLIED

Only because YOU requested anonymity!

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

<personal attack removed>

MaShiloh 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

FOR FULL DETAILS ... PLEASE VISIT

<link to personal attack in history removed>

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

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


[edit] Comments on History section

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

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

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


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

My suggestion is just keep it simple, and state the facts clearly... at least the biggies like that one. The fact that the ISSR is the only registry that operates under the guidance of the breed founder is not in dispute by anyone. People who wish to look into this phenomenal breed-in-development have ample opportunity to peruse the websites of all registries, this article should serve as an introduction to Shilohs. 68.51.177.128 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Laura L.


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

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


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

[edit] Breed History

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

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

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

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

Hmmmm, quite interesting, Jareth.152.163.100.138 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

[edit] Picture layout in article

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&oldid=38711739

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

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


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



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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&oldid=38711739 SandraSS 17:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

The photos I added were *not* to the top section, they were to illustrate the temperment and working sections. Please do not misrepresent my edits in such a manner. I have *never* attacked or vandalized a single portion of this article and I don't appreciate that attack either. Who submits photos has absolutely no bearing on their inclusion -- in fact, I uploaded quite a number of those that were provided after my request to illustrate certain breed traits; it would be helpful if you could attempt to work without feeling that you need to attribute actions to one side of the dispute or another. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think the pictures look the best the way they are right now although the picture of the flying trot is inaccurate as the dog in the picture clearly has one paw on the ground. WindsongKennels 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If you really must nitpick over the paw, feel free to provide a picture without that flaw. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not mean to "nitpick." But I think if a picture is to illustrate a "perfect flying trot" it should be a perfect flying trot. I had one from '94 Homecoming, but can't find it. I'll make it a personal project to get one for future use. For now, if a flawed picture must be used, then so be it.WindsongKennels 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"I'd like for us to assume good faith with this poster (WP:AGF[1]). It would appear he/she may know something about Shiloh Shepherds and canine movement and may have something positive to contribute to the article (i.e. "Movement and Gait" section). I'd like this poster to elaborate a little on the definition of a "flying trot" for us, since it is mentioned in the article and I don't understand what it entails. I appreciate his/her attempt to contribute commentary which seeks to ensure the accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability of the article and his/her further contributions are welcomed and encouraged. Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 02-8-2006 20:15 (UTC)
Here are two references to the Flying Trot
The great fascination with the flying trot come about because of what we call the "period of suspension." During the flying trot the whole dog is clear of the ground each time the right foreleg and the left hindleg are thrust forward while the opposite legs leave their ground-points of departure behind. On the next step when left and right legs alternate position, the dog again leaves the ground. "The Total German Shepherd Dog" by Fred Lanting
Flying Trot- fast gait in which all four feet are simultaneously off the ground. "Dictionary of Canine Terms" by Frank Jackson
WindsongKennels 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently my short post earlier wasn't clear enough. From the picture the dog does appear to be in full trot, however, it may not have been caught at that exact millisecond where all four legs are clearly off the ground. Its actually a difficult picture to get given the short period of time involved, though I've seen some wonderful shots by professional photographers with high end cameras. If someone has a better picture they're welcome to add it, but I have a hard time with the suggestion that this is not a picture of the movement described. And Miles, you have absolutely no leg to stand on in attempting to call *me* to task about neutrality -- I would appreciate it if you would refrain from further attacks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Statement of dispute

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

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

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

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

[edit] Disputed tag

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


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


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

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

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

[edit] Like it or not, here it is!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<removed personal attack>


Regards Jareth, Lisa Trendler


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

[edit] Where is the article?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Temporary ban from Shiloh Shepherd Dog

This temporary injunction has been passed in the Shiloh arbitration:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Unprotected

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

[edit] The disputed tag that wouldn't die

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

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

[edit] Picture of human says Dog in caption

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

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

Could someone fix this please?

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

[edit] Real Flying Trot

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

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

[edit] I really cannot believe how bad this article is.

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

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

Are you kidding? Have any of you actually seen a modern flavor of an original German Shepherd? Weighs about half the size (modern FCI median weight for males: 77 pounds [2]) of your designer pooch. The German Shepherd Dog was never envisioned to be this big, and its skeletal structure cannot support it in the activities it was designed to do. It is, simply put, dangerous to put this size of dog through the demands of Ringsport, SAR, police or military service, or any other "working" environment.

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

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

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

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


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

This article was edited for a long period of time by people very closely involved in the breeding of Shilohs. The concerns you have are the reasons that Wikipedia suggests people so close to a subject don't edit. I believe those people have moved on and you are more than welcome to make improvements to the article.
Very little source information is available for the Shiloh outside of the websites and publications of the registries and clubs devoted to the breed. I believe a lot of the information on working dogs and the like came from the ISSDC website. I, for one would be very interested in ideas you have for improving the article. After being involved in a lengthy dispute over the content and staring at the poor thing for months I haven't had the will to have a go at fixing it myself. Shell babelfish 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Again, I was just taken aback by how much bias and flat-out misrepresentation there is here. This is a boutique dog and has absolutely nothing in common with a true working breed, other than basic, though distorted, appearance. I'm not learned enough on Shilohs to rewrite the article...but whoa...this is just not an accurate portrayal of what these dogs are. Regardless of what their owners may believe, these are not considered legitimate working breeds in any way. Their size, their nerves, and their (lack of) drives preclude them from it. This does not make them bad dogs or bad pets.
I have no agenda here, though I will be the first to admit that I think Shilohs are a bad instance of good intentions, much like American Bulldogs and Pugs. I love dogs. I'm just saying that this article appears to be written only by people who want to sell Shiloh Shepherds. And that is not cool, neither for Wikipedia nor particularly for any prospective owner who is vetting this breed as a potential working dog.--Woody Taylor 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
So anyways, I'll make some basic changes...please do not view them as an attack on your breed...but these superlatives have got to go. Even cocky GSDs owners like me have to settle for admitting our breed is second-best at everything. ;-)--Woody Taylor 22:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


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

I agree with 100% of everything you're saying. The breed basically appears to be an attempt by the originator to get back to an idealized dog she had in her childhood. It's a free country. I just feel it inappropriate to ascribe all these superlatives to it, particularly with regard to its working capabilities. "Gentle family companions" and "real working animals" are often mutually exclusive, particularly from the standpoint of a breed standard. It's a big, pretty, apparently friendly dog. The article should reflect that. I think you and I are on the same page? ;-) And thanks for the comments...all this nonsense about who recognizes what SS where in what registry had hidden the fact that this article, at its core, was suggesting this dog had qualities it simply doesn't [re: to working capability and temperament]. I have never seen or worked a Shiloh on a training field but the people I know who have describe them as generally nervy, fearful, and hesitant in stressful environments relative to classic working breeds. That is true of 99% of the breeds out there, so it's not necessarily a derogatory statement.--192.55.2.36 14:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent Changes to Article

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/i/Talk%7EShiloh_Shepherd_Dog_c3c6.html"