Talk:Beagle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beagle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 10, 2007.

July 17, 2007

Featured article candidate

Promoted

Dogs Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines 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 been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

[edit] Kerry Beagle

The article gives the Kerry Beagle as a possible ancestor, but according to [1] this is a very different dog. The article also states that the Kerry Beagle is a "small hunter similar to a bloodhound" but [2] also says that it is 22-24 inches and has a rather un-bloodhound like picture. Before I edit the Ancestor section of the Beagle article, does anyone have another reference to support what is currently written? Wikipete 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've re-arranged the page a little bit

I'd like to keep improving and expanding this article, so I added more to the history section, including an evolution section, based on what I've read in Dan Brown's "The Beagle Handbook." I referenced his book at the bottom of the page if anyone thinks I made all that stuff up. - Zone46 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Caption Issue

I have been making a change in the Beagle article in good faith and some people seem to want to start a revert war with me. The image in question shows a beagle smiling, while using the caption to describe it's sense of smell. This is a terrible image to use, as it does not illustrate the beagle's sense of smell at all. It only shows it's wonderful ability to smile, and possibly it's ability at sticking it's tounge out. We need to find a compromise where this image is remove, or the caption changed. Otherwise, I will continue to edit this page until a solution can be reached. How about removing the image until a suitable one showing a beagle tracking or as a drug sniffing dog can be found? The only other possible solution is to change the caption. Please respond. Quickly. 83.31.186.247 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This new smelling photo is good for the caption! Now if only we could find a place to add the other photo, with an appropriate caption. Maybe move the one of the beagle smelling to the "Working Dog" section and then add back the older one to the temperment section with a caption that says "Beagles are a dog with a great temperment, and if socialized properly are great with kids." 83.31.186.247 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finally stating your reasons; it makes more sense now. When you edited, the caption read, "The Beagle has a very well-developed sense of smile." There's no such thing as a "sense of smile," and that's why I (and others) kept reverting it. If your concern was that the caption didn't properly describe the picture, I wish you would've stated that three days ago -- or 20 days ago, when you first edited this. I hope you understand why we thought you were vandalizing; our reverts were likewise made in good faith. --Birdhombre 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I did have sincere reasons as for constantly changing the caption, and would sometimes place them in the edit summary of posts; but I also thought the edit was silly and harmless. Plus, to me it was quite cute since everybody knows that there is no such thing as a sense of smile but the dog was actually doing a lot more smiling than smelling. It was cute to check back and see the caption still in place, but I understand the frustration felt and decidedly un-cute reaction to constant reverting. I apologise, and propose a stub be created for "Sense of Smile" exploring the nether regions of undiscovered somatosensory receptors in animals and humans which lead to smiling. Just kidding! 83.31.186.247 06:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think moving the beagle smelling picture over to the "Working Dog" section, exspecially since I had to rub Sour Cream and Onion on the floor to get my dog in that position. :p ChadyWady|Talk 23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the caption of the dog sniffing airport luggage. The dog is technically not an employee. It may seem minor but in WP we should try to be as accurate as possible.Member - Society of Dog Lovers 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are multiple meanings of employed. In that sense, it simply meant "make use of" (Example: As a drug-sniffing dog, the Beagle employs its sensitive olfactory abilities). But a different word is fine. VanTucky ^Talk 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Concern

As a beagle owner, I'm disappointed by the picture, as it doesn't show the beagle's glorious tail, or "flag", an essential aid to location in the field, especially when long grass obscures this relatively short-legged dog. Anyone got a better photo?Rrabbit 16:33 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you have the Beagle to hand, do you have a camera? Maybe you could take a better photo. If you need any help with image and file size and so on, I can help there. Just give me a shout -- sannse 16:47 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though a beagle owner I'm not a camera owner (one expensive toy is enough!) I do have a nice shot taken by a professional photographer, but it is only head and shoulders, so not as good as yours. Do you think I should add some stuff about beagling, i.e. hunting on foot with beagles, to the page? Rrabbit 09:09 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It's not mine, mine is the Border Collie :) I have the camera, but no Beagle. Information on beagling sounds good. And any other information you have on the breed history and so on would be a great addition. You might want to look at the dog breeds WikiProject for some ideas on article structure. Enjoy! -- sannse 12:55 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've a added some notes on the beagle's temperament, beagling, and use as sniffer dogs. Hope you approve. Rrabbit 14:57 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And I got that tail you wanted ;) -- sannse

I've removed the external link at the bottom of the page again - Elf is right, it is redundant because all the standards are linked in the table (which is the standard way of listing them on all the dog breed articles). The link in the text was redundant too - I didn't see that one earlier :) -- sannse (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't see that one. My apologies. -- Djinn112 11:19, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

--- This needs to be added ...

While beagles are rarely used for drug detection, they are the breed of choice of the Department of Agriculture to detect food items in luggage. The force is called the Beagle Brigade and they wear a green jacket. The reason the beagle was choosen is because they are small, easy to care for, and because they do not intimidate non-dog lovers.

Thanks to Elf for correcting my uncapitalizing of the breed names. I'm still somewhat new here and didn't realize that capitalizing breeds was Wiki style. ffirehorse 16:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem! I was going to bip over to your user page and make a note there but wiki's been so slow this morning that I didn't get thru my other edits first. Capitalization varies so much from project to project on wikipedia and it's hard to figure it out even after you've been here a while. If you're interested in dogs, you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds. And welcome to Wikipedia! Elf | Talk 16:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Question: Is the statement "the smallest of the scent-hunting hounds" correct? Is the Dachshund not a scenthound? -- Freak

Humm, I think you are right. I've removed the sentence -- sannse (talk) 20:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be "smallest of the pack-hunting hounds?" -- Ralphmerridew 02:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds right. Maybe someone can confirm it's true and it can go in the article? -- sannse (talk) 18:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stupidity

I've heard AND read Beagles are the stupidest dog breed on earth. This article states they're intelligent. Now what's correct? --Abdull 18:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, i have never met a beagle so i couldent give a direct yes or no for my opinion. But every dog has varying degrees of intelligence, and depending on what you believe true intelligence is will, of course, give different results.

Some people believe a dog is intellegent because it is willing to please its owner, thus, willing to learn more "tricks". Others believe that that is the more unintelligent type of dog as it rarely thinks for itself and will only do what any human tells it to. remember "intelligence" and "obedience" are two very different things, as is independance! Tekana 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Please read dog intelligence for a little expansion on this concept. Elf | Talk 22:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I can say, both from reading and personal experience, that you have got the beagle personality backwards. The are notoriously disobedient and hard to train. Even basic commands like "come here" and "stay" can be challenging. You may be confused because they are often classified as "loyal" and "affectionate" dogs. This is not the same as obedience. Anecdotally, they will knock down baby gates so that they can come upstairs to be in the same room as their owner, though every beagle I have seen (quite a few) also likes to run around in the woods by itself for a few hours when it can get the chance. I would say that the "Temperament" section is spot on except the "never let it off the leash". If you let them off the leash, they will run away, and probably not come back when you call them, but they are very loyal, and will come back to check on you frequently. Eventually they get bored and come back. It is more a matter of having a safe place to let them off the leash, with no nearby roads, or other places which might be dangerous for them to explore, they will explore.

I think in general they are a very smart breed. I put a beagle under a dog intelligence test and it scored very high, however you cannot train this one to not sleep on the bed... or your neck while your sleeping. Mine is stubborn, so you just have to be rougher with them. Mine isn't easily discouraged. I notice that the Beagle's famous howl scream isn't highlighted. YOu know, the one that sounds like your beating it when really its just excited you came home.

I have been to a kennel where there are at least 150 beagles. When I came in, all of them crowded around us. As soon as I waved my hand, most of them walked away... They were also sniffing EVERYTHING, maybe that's why people think that they're stupid. I think that beagles are very smart, but pretty much hide behind their sense of smell. My beagle does, at least.

I think it's too subjective to say that beagles are intelligent without any scientific evidence supporting your claim. Without other kinds of testing supporting your argument, it's best to adhere to this article[[3]], even though it's based solely on ability to follow commands. --Tribe4ever 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Beagles are not in any way unintelligent. I own four. Dogs do not come any smarter.

Regarding problem-solving to remove obstacles from their stubborn strong will, I have never seen a smarter dog than a beagle. I have observed after-the-fact evidence of a beagle use spatial reasoning (and perhaps leverage) to tear off a screwed-on grating that covered a hole that allowed access to a basement when it was outside during a thunderstorm. This was a rural outdoor beagle who had never been in that basement before. As a pup, that beagle had witnessed a gunshot that killed an animal. For the rest of his life, he thought thunder was a gun and that animals can die from the loud bang. I doubt that there is a more willful dog than a beagle. The beagle's intelligence is directly tied to its will. Its will is directly tied to answering the question "So what is in it for me?" —optikos 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I own two beagles and they are extremely capable of solving problems. My two beagles are resourceful and for my beagles, if I leave a door in our backyard unlocked, they'll attempt to budge it open and will not leave it alone until they find a way to get through it. What I've seen my beagle do to open an unlocked sliding door is that he/she will paw on the handle until it open a bit. then using it's snout it'll will move the door until it can fit through it. Believe me, if a beagle wants something, it will do everything until it can get it.

I grew up with Beagles as hunting dogs and have found them to be incredably intellengent. They are stubborn, but they remember everything, have great problem solving abilities, are fiercly independent and have an insatiable curiousity (which gets them into trouble). I watched Ticker (a small blue tick) chase a cat into an old barn and then climb into the rafters after the poor feline. When the cat climbed up to get away, Ticker looked around, saw a board that went from floor to rafters at a diagonal, and ran up it to get the cat. She had never been in the barn, knew that she couldn't climb the same way as the cat did (up the wall) and immediately found another way to achieve her goal. I've owned and trained many beagles, and all of them have been brilliant hunting dogs. They just don't have a "stop button" like labs and setters do.

One of my beagles has learned to open the screen door. The good thing is that if the screen door is closed, with the sliding glass door open, it's probably warm and dry, so he can come in. Valley winters consist of rain, but he can't get in during that. As for commands, my female beagle quickly learned "Get the kitty." Not a challenging trick for beagles, though. I've seen the girl trick the boy into digging an escape under the fence to the point she can get out, but he cannot. She hasn't tried it in a while, she's probably picked up on the way the boy turns her in by howling. Poor guy can't take being alone. --Kirby-oh 06:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the person who claimed such a thing could say that because it sounds as if they've never even owned a beagle.

On BEAGLE INTELLIGENCE: In my experience, the Beagle is a pretty smart dog. The problem, as indicated by discussion above, is what we mean by "canine intelligence". Let's face it, no Beagle ever invented anything. But no other canine has either. Rightly or wrongly, what we commonly mean by "smart dog" is "can it be taught things?" and "will it obey?"...In this sense, yes, the Beagle is quite intelligent even if a bit independent minded (apt to wander following its nose). Ex: the Beagle Brigade....One thing that is not really mentioned in the article is that Beagles have a particular reputation for being escape artists. They're pretty good at getting out of fences, pens, etc when they want. But unless picked up, they'll usually follow their nose back home. Engr105th 10:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beagles and “Inspiratory Paroxysmal Respiration” / “Pharyngeal Spasms”

Many beagle owners claim that they are prone to this reflexive behavior, also known as “reverse sneezing” and “reverse breathing.” Are there any other beagle owners or any authorities out there who think this should be mentioned in the “Health” section of the article? I have a beagle who displays this, and I understand that some other breeds (chihuahuas) are prone to it also. (I think it has to do with the shapes of their snouts and breathing passages.)

Here are a couple of external links that shed light on this phenomenon (accessible as of 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)):

“Dog Tip: Reverse Sneezing”

“Reverse Sneezing in Dogs”

—Iguana Scales 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this in a lot of breeds, including many Beagles, but I've never seen anything suggesting that certain breeds are more likely to exhibit it. This is probably due to a lack of formal research in that area, and I suspect Beagles are prone to it. I've just done a journal search and come up with nil, and a search of conference proceedings just finds it listed as a symptom for a number of upper respiratory diseases. I think it would be OK to add it, as long as you don't say Beagles are especially prone to it more than other breeds. As far as cause, again I don't have any proof that the Beagle's nasal passages make them more prone to reverse sneezing. It's "a forceful inspiratory nasal effort secondary to nasopharyngeal irritation", according to Brendan C. McKiernan (an old professor of mine speaking at the 2006 WVC) and "is likely to be a consequence of the patient's attempt to displace matter trapped in the nasopharynx and move it into the oropharynx, where it can be subsequently swallowed.", according to Richard B. Ford, DVM, MS, DACVIM, DACVPM, as said at the ACVIM 2005 conference (more specific references available on request). Hope this helps. --Joelmills 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's great to have a DVM weigh in on the issue. I'll see if I can add a brief mention/link in the article when I have the time, taking your explanation into account. (Either that or someone more inclined/qualified can take it up, of course.) And maybe if I can translate all that vetspeak(!) into layman's terms, I'll take a stab at it in the “reverse sneezing” entry. Again, thanks for your expertise!

—Iguana Scales 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Basically, according to the above references, a reverse sneeze is the dog taking in a forceful breath due to irritation in the back of nasal cavity, in order to move the irritating material to the back of the mouth so it can swallow it (although I would guess that usually there actually is no material, just irritation). --Joelmills 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what that horrible I'm-dying sound my dog makes every now and then... that's quite relieving actually. Thanks! Electriceel [ə.lɛk.tʃɹɪk il] 04:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age

I think that the average age for Beagles might be a bit misleading because owners treat them very differently. Beagles are curious and stubborn to the point of ignoring immediate peril until it's too late, so those that are allowed to wander will tend to have shorter lifespans than those that are kept in fenced-in yards just due to accidental death. I have known (and known of) many fenced-in Beagles who live to the ages of 17-20. I wonder if the average lifespan of 12-15 years (as is on the page now) is due to the premature deaths of many outdoor and hunting Beagles, skewing the average down. (Still 19:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

It's possible. Consider that statements of human life expectancy also take into consideration accident, illness, proximity of loaded guns, childbirth, stupidity, etc. Dog ages are challenging these days in addition because apparently longevity has increased greatly in recent decades with improved diet and medical care, at least in some areas, so many dogs are living longer anyway. Most of these breed ages come from references such as recent dog encyclopedias--I hope :-) at least, the ages I've added or checked. If you have a citeable reference that can provide other reliable information, of course feel free to update the page and add a Reference. Elf | Talk 22:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a Beagle that has just turned 10 years of age, and with a large amount of attention and training, he is obedient to a fault. While it may seem impossible, I have been able to break that habit of putting the nose to the ground and "off we go" Beagles are more like human children then just about any breed I've seen. If allowed, they will charge into danger without a care in the world...just following their noses. But they can be taught more words then just the usual "sit, stay, shake, etc" I've taught mine to "slow down, come here, and sometimes to go a specific direction I want him to" But it all boils down to patience and repetition.

They are very much like children.

[edit] Bug

Please verify the article Bug (dog breed) contributed by an anot not long time ago. mikka (t) 01:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo caption

I love the picture of the beagle sleeping on the black sofa, but the caption reads, The rare instance of a Beagle taking a break. I don't mean to get all squirrely, but "rare" seems POV to me, especially since my family has always owned very lazy beagles who seemed content to sleep all day! Does anyone else think this should be reworded? We could just change it to, A Beagle taking a break. --Birdhombre 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Elf | Talk 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a picture I took of my beagle Noodle, and the original caption was something like "Beagle taking a break". Whoever added "the rare instance" never met Noodle, he's the laziest dog in the world. Glad you like the picture though! 69.113.219.231 05:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the protocol. I had a beagle 4 years ago. I just miss him (he was a person) very, very much. :) Painbearer 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I lost a favorite dog 3 years ago. And ditto. Elf | Talk 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] too many pictures?

anyone else think this article has too many pictures already? i'm certain that we don't need any more on here. this article is on the threshold of be coming a website for posting every wikipedian's pet beagle. it's sort of embarrassing. any thoughts?

Sparsefarce 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It does get pretty cluttered. When I added my pic because I thought there weren't enough, but two or three more is too much. I think it looks fine now. - Zone46 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pocket beagles

I added a reference to support the statement about pocket beagles - this reference is quite a bit POV (warning consumers away from modern versions of these dogs) - so if someone could find a better reference (from a book maybe?) that would be great. - Trysha ^(talk) 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doughnut Formation?

I have a question about the caption on the picture of the beagle curled up under the heading "Working Life." Doughnut formation? I think the original meaning of that was just to be silly, but it came across to me as being standard lingo regarding beagles. This makes me feel as though there are other fomations that beagles exhibit. I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words right now, but does anyone else understand what I'm saying? It's especially strange since doughnut is linked to a page about actual doughnuts, which really have nothing to do with beagles (although not if my beagle has anything to say about it!) Thanks Amakali 06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen many other beagle formations, including the "Food for me?" formation, involving standing in the doorway, and wagging the tail slowly, while staring, and the "A walk?!??!/one!" formation, consisting of racing around the house wildly, dragging the retractable leash with no regard to the tendency to get it stuck on objects. I do think it should stay, though. --Kirby-oh 06:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image replacements

68.38.80.69, as you can appreciate, your image edits are continuously being reverted by other Wikipedia users, including myself. Instead of just countering the reverts, you might want to explain yourself here, as you have often been offered. There is already a high-quality useable image available and it appears there no consensus regarding why your image is superior. AirOdyssey (Talk) 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article needs a citation overhall. Please add cites to the needed passages, or they will be removed as unverified. Alvis 05:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocalization

"In reality, most bark only on rare occassions" Perhaps well-trained beagles, but as a former beagle owner, I must disagree. Every beagle I have known, well-socialized or otherwise, has been extremely vocal. Simple triggers such as an unfamiliar person or animal will trigger a burst of that weird howl/bark that makes beagle vocalizations so distinct. And annoying. The Great Attractor 00:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. "Rare occasions" is misleading - beagles do indeed bark on fairly simple triggers. I would say the one that doesn't bark is rather rare. Great dogs, though. I don't find the bark/howl particularly weird; just wish they'd limit it to the hunt! Engr105th 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. My beagle will howl if I so much as raise my hand in the air while looking at him. 70.44.146.95 05:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breed health

Anyone know the general health of the breed? A lot(if not most) of breed pages have a section describing the hereditary problems of the breed, even on the healthiest(such as the Jack Russel Terrier). BioTube 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this one has ever been sufficiently inbred, given that people tended to own whole packs. JRT would have had smaller population sizes. Also, JRT is not an FA. 82.71.48.158 04:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other canine FA

Would this be the first FA on a dog breed on en.wiki?Rlevse 03:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you check out the list of Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology.2C_medicine_and_psychology into which animal-related articles usually fall into. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

The article on Beagles in pop culture is up for deletion. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be called 'Beagle in popular culture'? Anchoress 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead external links found

One (1) link was detect as requiring assistance, http://www.ckc.ca/Default.aspx?tabid=137&Breed_Code=BAL returned a HTTP 404 status message. —Dispenser 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is "Beagle" capitalized?

I was looking at tomorrow's featured article, and noticed that Snoopy was referred to as "the world's most famous Beagle". Why is the word "beagle" capitalized? It's not completely consistent in this article, and the source for that particular quotation doesn't capitalize the word. I know that the names of many dog breeds are often capitalized, but the dictionaries I consulted don't seem to support it. ([4], [5]) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed the same thing. We also don't capitalise species consistently across Wikipedia. To my mind, they should all be lower case. I've never known anyone to own a Dog, for instance. People would probably get upset in cases like the supreme iridescent warbler (I just made that up), where it's not clear whether "supreme" is part of the species name, or the Turkish van, which could be a variety of cat or a kebab institution. Someone suggested a while ago to consistently use Latin names instead of common ones. But then, Wikipedia is hardly learnéd... 82.71.48.158 02:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here to comment on the same thing (or is it Thing? I feel very Teutonic with the nouns when I do that). I've never seen "beagle" capitalized consistently in other reading. -Phoenixrod 03:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact cat breeds are always capitalized, and I think that's the convention for dog breeds too. The AKC certainly does it here. And yes Mr. Anon the difference between a Turkish Van and a Turkish van is that the first one is a cat. The caps make a difference. In this case (from reading the article) a Beagle is the specific breed, and a beagle is a generic beagle-type dog. At any rate there is a precedent for it in other literature. pschemp | talk 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

a) you can probably find lobbying groups that recommend capitalising X, whatever X may be. Some think that god should be capitalised for instance (the lobbying group for that is sort of large...)

b) leaving that aside, if the capitalised spelling of Beagle is correct, then shouldn't it be "Beagle-type" dogs rather than "beagle-type"? That's what people mean about consistency. 82.71.48.158 05:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the generic use of the word, so that is consistent. And capitalization amongst those who write about dog breeds is consistent and is capitalized. That's what makes a Great Dane a dog and a great Dane a man. pschemp | talk 05:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, context is usually more than sufficient to make it clear that great dane generally means a dog when it's a page about dogs, and a man when it's a page about Canute the Great. Human beings often have a remarkable ability to distinguish jargon from vernacular usage. You don't find us statisticians demanding that Likelihood, Consistency and Deviance be capitalised, now do you? -- Hongooi 07:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a long discussion on this at the WP:MOS talk page. Basically the bird guys want it capitalised as per official ornithological rules, while most other people think it's silly but not really worth fighting over. The end compromise is that bird-related articles always have it capitalised, while for other animals it's open. -- Hongooi 07:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly relevant, since they are debating the common names of things. The common name of the thing here is "dog" which wouldn't be capitalized. Beagle however, is a specific breed name, and although it isn't a scientific name, in terms of the breed, it has a very specific meaning. pschemp | talk 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For what's its worth, I disagree with the capitalisation also - why should "beagle" be capitalised when "dog" isn't, when both "ship" and "cruiser" remain uncapitalised? I don't see any rationale being stated for the capitalisation. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a standard within the dog-breeding trade, which hasn't been adopted widely in the culture-at-large. It's a bit like real estate agents wanting to be called Realtors®: the experts are claiming a stylistic usage which hasn't been adopted outside the specialist community. Not sure what the Wikipedia standard on things like this is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Beagle is capitalised here because there is no standard and to differentiate Beagle (the modern breed) from beagle (small scent hound that has been around for hundreds of years). Yomangani ^talk 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The capitalisation is a useful convention here for disambiguation. There is no reason not to use something that is used in other literature and serves a logical purpose.pschemp | talk 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And the article already does a pretty good job of distinguishing between the old and the new breed via phrases like "beagle-type dogs", "the modern [b]eagle", "the modern breed", and so on. This is a far more reliable way of doing it; relying on capitalisation alone to do the job would be sloppy and fraught with danger. As such, the capitalisation adds nothing except to confuse people who think it's an inconsistency. -- Hongooi 10:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Say what? What is the following bit of rhetoric about, if not the exact topic that is under discussion here?

Is a bald eagle a Bald Eagle, or a generic type of eagle, which has lost its feathers? Is a black redstart a Black Redstart, or a Redstart which is melanistic? [Andy Mabbett]

Specific section: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Common_names_of_animals, and the next 2 sections as well. -- Hongooi 10:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] medium-sized breed? or dog?

I'm not quite so bold as to change the lead sentence of today's featured article, but that sentence does seem to say that the breed is medium sized. Perhaps 'a breed of medium-sized dog'...? - Special-T 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] error in lead paras

"the modern breed was developed in Britain around the 1830s from several breeds, including the Talbot Hound, the North Country Beagle, the Southern Hound and possibly the Harrier......Beagles have been depicted in popular culture since Elizabethan times""

The breed was developed in the 19th century but was depicted in the 16th century??? That seems a little... odd, unless beagles have mystic time-travelling powers (which is not stated in the article if true). Perhaps the wording needs to be changed here.... - PocklingtonDan (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

the modern breed was developed around the 1830s. Yomangani ^talk 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inadvertent article humour

From the article: Anyone else see a slightly humourous discrepancy in using a photo of a dog that looks like it is about to bite your ankle with the tagline "frinedly nature and gentleness"? Could the photo not be replaced with one a little more... friendly? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's smiling.-Wafulz 12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it looks like it will bite your ankle off. It looks like its smiling - • The Giant Puffin • 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Is this guy "smiling" too? In nature, open mouth + teeth showing does not generally equal "smiling" - thats you anthropomorphizing the animal. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan, the beagle (or Beagle, if the AKC insists) is panting and paying attention to the photographer. He's not about to bite. There's nothing aggressive in his posture or expression. I don't know if I'd characterize him as smiling, exactly — though dogs do smile, as any dog owner or trainer can tell you. A quick Google search found this interesting blog which excerpts from a book called Dog Language, an Encylcopedia of Canine Behavior. I also found this, which claims that dogs smile only to humans, and not to each other (though I don't know how reliable it is). Anyway, that beagle isn't threatening; if you think he is, you're misinterpreting his body language. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Goldfish, pictured seconds prior to launching a vicious assault on an innocent human. Note characteristic body and eye position, indicating attack readiness. Rockpocket 07:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A dog that was about to bite you wouldn't be sitting and if they were showing their teeth aggressively they would be showing their upper teeth. Yomangani ^talk 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a friendly pup to me. Coloration aside, this could have been a picture of my beagle, and that expression usually means "Wanna play?" android 79 03:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan is a [redacted]. A dog doesn't open its mouth until it is in the act of biting (and often lunging at the same time, not sitting on its happy ass as is this specimen). Before it bites, an angry dog will growl with its mouth shut, lips pulled back, teeth bared. Beagles are no different; I've owned two. This dog is chilling, pure and simple. And why the fuck would he compare a dog to an alligator? He might as well show me what a goldfish does before it attacks. 69.138.251.227 03:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon, please refrain from personal attacks. You can disagree with someone without calling him a moron. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] odd reference

What's with this reference in the article's bibliography? :

"Stonehenge", (J. H. Walsh) (1856). Manual of British Rural Sports. London: G. Routledge and Co..

What's with the "Stonehenge" prefix before the author name? is this some old vandalism? It pre-dates the article's FA so it isn't frontpage vandalism, but surely it has been added by a vandal at some point in the past????? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Stonehenge is the pen-name of J.H. Walsh (as mentioned in the article), so it isn't vandalism. Yomangani ^talk 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, in that case it is written incorrectly, there is no need for the comma before the parentheses. It should read something like:

John "Stonehenge" Walsh, Manual of British Rural Sports, London, 1856 G. Routledge and Co.. or whatever - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that putting the pen name in the middle is misleading — it makes "Stonehenge" sound like a nickname, instead of a pen name. You wouldn't refer to Saki as H. H. "Saki" Munro. I'd say that the only change that's needed is to move the comma after the real name, like so:

"Stonehenge" (J. H. Walsh), (1856). Manual of British Rural Sports. London: G. Routledge and Co..

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

As a quick glance at any dictionary will show, it is not correct to capitalize dog breeds unless they derive from proper nouns. Thus, Pomeranian and Dalmatian are capitalized, but poodle and greyhound are not. Beagle should not be capitalized.

In all dog related literature written by the breed associations, the name of the breed is capitalized. See the discussion above. This is the convention of the AKC and the UK kennel clubs. In this case there is a generic beagle and the breed Beagle and yes, there is a difference, even it its only the fact that a pedigree exists. pschemp | talk 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See the reasons for the capitalisation stated above. Yomangani ^talk 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I changed it but forgot to look here. Sorry. I'll try to fix it back. Member - Society of Dog Lovers 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, some parts of the article is about the generic beagle and some are the specific breed. Member - Society of Dog Lovers 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snoopy and notability

>>"he is the world's most famous Beagle. you can't get more notable than that" You are missing the point. It is notable in the snoopy article that he is a beagle, it is not a notable fact about beagle's that Snoopy is a famous cartoon based on one. An analogy for you - Homer Simpson is a famous cartoon human, but I wouldnt expect the article on humans to mention him. You have your notability back to front. Please let's discuss this here before reverting my edits again. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your example isn't relevent. While Homer is a famous cartoon human, he isn't the most famous cartoon human. The fact that Snoopy is a Beagle is notable. It doesn't matter which way around you claim it is. pschemp | talk 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't care enough (read: at all) about beagles or Snoopy to bother arguing with you, but you're wrong. Including a mention of Snoopy in the lead para of an article on beagles (which should, according to WP:MOS contain a summary of only the most important points on an article's topic) is pandering to modern pseudo-culture and is unencyclopedic. it is what separates a large number of wikipedia articles from the more scholarly work in many print encyclopedias. I won't edit the article again but I hope you might put some thought into this issue. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. And edits stay in an article unless there is consensus to remove them when they are contested. That's how wikipedia works. I don't see consensus yet. pschemp | talk 15:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pocklington DASn - the lead is a summary of the article - thus the sentence...The sentence was also in when featured.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Right -spelling it out - LEAD summarises salient points of article. Pop cult is a section, and hence a one-liner which is elaborated elsewhere - this is in MOS. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Casliber's right — cultural portrayals of the breed are relevant information. Furthermore, Snoopy is in fact the most famous beagle in the world. No other beagle, fictional or real, has attained the cultural status that Snoopy has. You can look down your nose at pop culture, but it's a real and important aspect of our experiences, and I actually think that Wikipedia's comprehensive treatment of it is an advantage over print encyclopedias. Sure, we could handle it in a more thoughtful and in-depth manner sometimes; but the subject matter is legitimate.

Back to Snoopy — I've read somewhere (sorry, no reliable source at hand — just this) that the popularity of Peanuts helped make beagles as a breed more popular. That alone shows that pop culture merits encyclopedic coverage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles should be stable and well written. The edit war is unbecoming, and "Snoopy of the comic strip Peanuts has been called 'the world's most famous beagle'; the upcoming live-action version of Underdog stars a beagle" sounds kind of dopey and unencylopedic. As a compromise between the pro- and anti-Snoopy factions I would propose a more concise paragraph such as:

"Beagles have been depicted in popular culture since Elizabethan times in literature and paintings, and latterly in film, television and comic strips. Popular fictional beagles include Snoopy and Underdog." --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The mention of Underdog in the lead should be removed. I didn't include it in the original featured version at all, because as far as I can see it is only a Beagle in the film (not any previous incarnations), and the "upcoming live-action version" hardly establishes its notability. Yomangani ^talk 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you wrote or are otherwise in favor of the text Snoopy of the comic strip Peanuts has been called 'the world's most famous beagle.' Do you have a source for the "world's most famous" phrase. "Has been called" does not attriubte a source and amounts to weasel wording.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have much time, so briefly: the phrase is cited to the appropriate website in the pop culture section where I worded it billed as (and have just replaced that wording). I pruned the pop culture section way back before the FAC and split most of the irrelevant and incorrect stuff into a separate article (which has since been deleted). Yomangani ^talk 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The citation is note 74, to this website. I agree that Underdog doesn't merit inclusion in the lead; however, Snoopy clearly does. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Has been called" is still weak language for the lead, even if the specific phrase is sourced much later.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. How about something like "In the twentieth century, Snoopy of the comic strip Peanuts increased visibility for the breed"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That would constitute better wording, but are you sure it's ok to have no sources in the lead? I've looked at other FAs, and many of them have plenty of inline footnotes in the first paragraph.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a subject that has been discussed on various pages, with no definitive conclusion. As I understand it, there are two schools of thought: some say that the lead is like any other part of the article, and should have sourced statements, while others feel that the lead is a summary of the article, and as long as the information is sourced at the point in the article where it's discussed in detail, that's sufficient. I'm not sure which school of thought is dominant at the moment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that wording is weaker than what is currently there. How would we show the "increased visibility" in the 20th century caused by Snoopy? Perhaps "is advertised as" to replace "has been called"? That is both demonstrable and gives some idea that interested parties are performing the action. As to inline citations in the lead being made compulsory, don't get me started...just one of the reasons I'm thinking of ditching (they aren't currently mandatory though). Yomangani ^talk 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds better too.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated it. I used promoted instead of advertised to avoid the z/s problem. Yomangani ^talk 00:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was any other beagle than Snoopy, I would agree it shouldn't be in the lead. But Snoopy is a bona fide icon of pop culture, and possibly the most famous dog (of any breed) in the world. That's enough to qualify a mention, IMO. -- Hongooi 11:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Snoopy famous? Yes. Credible source? No. Really only two sources are quoting snoopy as "world's most famous beagle." Snoopy.com and Cedar Point Amusement Park, who their company, Cedar Fair, owns the rights to. I like Yomangani's idea. He's "advertised as". And, by the way, I love Snoopy more than you guys do. But let's be fair here. --Chrisottjr 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eye condition

Regarding this edit and whether the condition is trichiasis or distichiasis: petplace.com, a commercial site that is not likely reliable, is used to source the change to trichiasis.[6] The original condition (distichiasis) was sourced to the AKC, a reliable source.[7] This needs to be sorted out with a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted a query at the Vet Project; also, the original sentence is referring to two different conditions, yet the edit summary refers to cherry eye rather than distichiasis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

On further examination, the petplace.com site (which is not a reliable source and doesn't mention Beagles) doesn't source the sentence anyway, while the AKC site clearly sources it, so unless someone clears this up with a reliable source, I'll restore distichiasis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Distichiasis is abnormally placed eyelashes rubbing on the eye, and trichiasis is hair from the eyelid rubbing on the eye. So the correct name of the condition described in the text is distichiasis. However, I'll give you my opinion, which is that Beagles aren't particularly prone to cherry eye, distichiasis, or trichiasis. The AKC website has this as its first sentence: "The following conditions, hereditary or otherwise, are known to exist in beagles." It doesn't say that the conditions are at all common in Beagles. My ophthalmology textbook doesn't list the Beagle as being prone to any of those three conditions. I did find a source giving the incidence of ophthalmic conditions in Beagles (in Korea) [8], and I don't think the incidence listed for cherry eye and distichia is higher than average for dogs. The two ophthalmic conditions Beagles are known for are glaucoma and corneal dystrophy, and you can use my textbook for a source if you want to include that in the article ({{cite book|author=Gelatt, Kirk N. (ed.)|title=Veterinary Ophthalmology|edition=3rd ed.|publisher=Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins|year=1999|id=ISBN 0-683-30076-8}}). --Joelmills 02:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Joelmills; unless someone else comes in with something different, I'll make that change tomorrow or later. Thanks for the source; I'm anxious to get petplace.com removed, since this is a featured article and it's not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Do you have a page number for the citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Page 656 for corneal dystrophy and page 718 for glaucoma (which is a primary open-angle glaucoma that is inherited as an autosomal recessive trait, if you want more detail). --Joelmills 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honoring of Breed

The beagle is the state dog of Kentucky. Possibility of this being listed under pop culture or some honors of the breed.

Your thoughts?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga1lyons (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting errors with references?

If you click on the inline references, a lot of them bring you to the wrong footnotes. Some bring you nowhere. For example, reference 28 brings you to 20, 29 to 21, while 40 brings you nowhere.--165.21.154.88 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One additional illness that the breed is subject to, which should be mentioned I think, is degenerative disk disease. This disease is a degeneration of the disks between the spinal cord bones of the back and neck. The dog is prone to this problem because of the length of the spine, as is the bloodhound and other breeds. As the dog ages it should be tested for this problem. My beloved beagle suffered paralysis of her front legs because of this condition. After the diagnosis I looked it up and learned that the breed is commonly subject to this problem.69.37.162.126 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to illnesses common to the breed.

One other condition to which beagles are subject is degenerative disk disease, which is a condition that can occur as the dog ages, in which the disks separating the bones of the spinal column deteriorate, and can crumble and break, allowing fragments to penetrate the spinal cord, causing paralysis. I know of this condition because my beloved beagle Jenny succumbed to it.69.37.162.126 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)