Talk:Canine reproduction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine. This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

A summary of this article appears in Dog.

Contents 1 Comment 2 Unconsistent 3 Copulation section 4 Turning

[edit] Comment

This article now has a suitable encyclopedic layout, but needs expansion, especially in sections marked as stub.

I've also tagged the spay/neuter section NPOV since it is markedply pushing a side in the sdiscussion, and this page really isnt the place to rehash that debate. Better just sum up the core clinical information and leave the main debates to the main article on that topic.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unconsistent

The terms "bitch", "female dog", and "dog" (to mean a female member of this species) are switched too frequently, I think. Better stick to one.

[edit] Copulation section

The original section, removed by User:GordonE, read as follows:

"When copulating, a male canine initially mounts the female from behind, as with most tetrapods, a position known informally as doggy style. The female will hold her tail to the side if receptive. The male will often move about as he tries to get a good purchase upon her, and whilst attempting penetration of his penis to the female's vulva. At this point, the penis is not erect, it is slender and held rigid by a small bone inside, known as the baculum.

"When the male achieves penetration, he will often hold tighter and thrust faster, and it is at this point when he is mating that his penis grows. Canine reproduction is different from human sexual intercourse, because human males become erect first, and then enter the female; canine males enter first, then swell and become erect.

"The male dog has a bulbus glandis, a spherical area of erectile tissue at the base of the penis, which traps the penis inside the female's vagina during copulation as it becomes engorged with blood. [1]

"Once the penis is locked into the vagina by the bulbus glandis, the male will usually lift a leg and swing it over the female's back while turning around. The two stand with their hind ends touching and the penis locked inside the vagina while ejaculation occurs, decreasing leakage of semen from the vagina. After some time, typically 5 - 20 minutes (but sometimes longer), the bulbus glandis disengorges, allowing the mates to separate. Virgin dogs can become quite distressed at finding themselves unable to separate during their first copulation, and may try to pull away or run.

"Note that similar canine mounting behavior (sometimes with pelvic thrusting) is also used by dominant canines of both sexes. Dominance mounting, with or without thrusting, should not be confused with copulatory mounting, in which the thrusting is short term until a "tie" is achieved."

User:GordonE's comment: [2]

":"I've removed the copulation section from Canine reproduction, again. I'm not a prude, and I do respect the work you appear to have done dealing with sexual relationships of various types -- it's an area that must be reported. However, Wiki is not a grot shop, and anything as sensitive (as I am sure you appreciate) as this must be thoroughly cited. Alas, this probably means a cite in almost every (grammatical) clause... As well, the para on the dog turning backwards is pure crap. The only time I have EVER seen it is when the two animals have been violently disturbed, and it is extremely painful and distressing for both dog and bitch. The simple fact is that dog anatomy simply does not permit it."

Edit summary for removal: [3]

"Remove copulation garbage. On a purely mechanical plane, it just don't compute. It's venial rubbish. If you REALLY MUST have it, CITE it. Thoroughly."

My comment, copied here for article discussion: [4]

"Hence why I tagged the article as needing expert attention. I'm no expert in the subject, the research I have done online is as best I'm able. I may do more. There should be a section of that type, covering that material. But I'm not an expert in it.

"Then again I'm not an expert in veterinary and other biological-clinical subjects such as Pyometra, Hip dysplasia, Bloat, Phenoptosis, or Diabetes management (see: Article contributions), and those were also articles I substansively wrote too; writing wiki-articles is a pretty good education.

"My basic stance is, I don't mind if the information I wrote is incorrect, and being replaced, but please ensure that it is replaced by factually valuable information. If specific aspects are unnecessarily detailed can you note the ones removed on the talk page as a courtesy so I can take a look? But the actual section should stand, and be correctly cited if needed, not just removed. In some articles every grammatical phrase virtually, in some sections is individually cited; that's quite common.

"I think this must be a case of over-prurience. It's an article on animal sexuality, and readers will therefore expect and be prepared to find information of that nature. As long as it is reliable, notable in the article's subject, and policy compliant with regards to presentation, I'm not sure that skipping from the reproductive cycle to gestation with zero mention of the copulatory act itself is good treatment.

"As for turning around, I base this upon my own experience of canine copulation, as I have friends who are breeders. I've seen it at least three times, two of which were photographed (one by myself, one by the breeder) as backup photos for other projects, so I don't think you can be correct about this, if you genuinely mean that turning during copulation is a mis-statement. Can you clarify this aspect of your comments a bit?"

User:GordonE's response, copied for completeness at about 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I was born in the first half of last century, and both my family and myself have had dogs coming out of our ears, not to mention friends' and acquaintances' dogs. Our collective experience covers both pure-bred and mongrels. The "turning around" behaviour in our experience is totally abnormal. If you can find a number of references that demonstrate it is not abnormal behaviour, then it can -- should -- be included.

As I said -- and I do not wish to have to repeat it -- I am not a prude. What I did say is that in a subject as sensitive as sexuality (perhaps I should have been more direct and said "copulation") details of copulation must be amply cited. You claim that readers will be prepared for graphic descriptions of actual copulation -- I have no problem. But the description must be cited. Oh, BTW, given the proposed nature of the article, and some appreciation of potential readers, for example children and young adolescents, maybe some rating system might be applicable, don't you think? Like a "M 18+"?  Gordon | Talk, 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that removal of the section is inappropriate and the section should be reinstated, possibly with review of the material felt to be inaccurate. I'm not sure which if any parts are being described as "rubbish", but the tone suggests it is more a personal objection to canine copulation being discussed in the canine reproduction article, than an objection to major specific mis-statements, and that's not an appropriate basis for deletion of core aspects of the subject, if so.

Can we discuss here any inaccuracies or errors contained, and address any issues arising, in preference to mass-deletion? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I was born in the first half of last century, and both my family and myself have had dogs coming out of our ears, not to mention friends' and acquaintances' dogs. Our collective experience covers both pure-bred and mongrels. The "turning around" behaviour in our experience is totally abnormal. If you can find a number of references that demonstrate it is not abnormal behaviour, then it can -- should -- be included.

As I said -- and I do not wish to have to repeat it -- I am not a prude. What I did say is that in a subject as sensitive as sexuality (perhaps I should have been more direct and said "copulation") details of copulation must be amply cited. You claim that readers will be prepared for graphic descriptions of actual copulation -- I have no problem. But the description must be cited. Oh, BTW, given the proposed nature of the article, and some appreciation of potential readers, for example children and young adolescents, maybe some rating system might be applicable, don't you think? Like a "M 18+"?  Gordon | Talk, 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [copied from user_talk:FT2]

Hiya, and thanks for the reply. My comments briefly. A description of behavior attributed to dogs, should be based upon credible sources, and not WP:OR. That applies equally to both of our views and experiences - to your experiences and also to mine. So I think we can easily agree there, and some form of professional view of what is or isn't 'normal' should be obtained

The rest of the comment I don't agree with. Wikipedia discusses fully and frankly matters that are tasteful and distasteful equally, and does not censor relevant material for fear of offense or child viewing. See WP:CENSOR. If you personally think Wikipedia needs a rating system, or that content should be edited on the basis of reader appropriateness overriding subject relevance, then that's beyond the scope of this article and needs raising at the Village Pump. As it stands, Wikipedia policy and community consensus is specifically against that approach, which has been discussed many times before, so I can't support or agree with it either. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say censor. I said rating. There is a huge difference, which most people can see quite readily. As it happens, I totally agree with 99% of Wikipedia's stand. The 1% I have a problem with is that a very few articles should carry some warning about the nature of the content, simply so that responsible parents/guardians can make up their own minds what they allow their charges to see. Of course, it doesn't really matter. I live in Australia, where the Federal Government has already put in place most of the measures necessary to control what the citizenry will be allowed to see on the internet. They just haven't activated it. Yet.  Gordon | Talk, 08:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline which states that the article need carry any rating whatsoever. See autofellatio, oral sex or evolution of sex for articles which contain sexual content like this one, yet still require no rating.

From WP:NOT:

...some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

This is something that should be brought up as a proposal for a policy first, before a rating system can be considered for this or any other article. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If there were a rating system, and I hope there never will be, I would rate this article in ins present state as G. If a suitable photograph were added to every section, I would again vote it as G. If there were a sub-G for children 8 or younger, I would still consider this suitable for them.

First, they see it in real life, even in urban environments. Children have always learned about human reproduction from observing domestic animals, and this is a basic part of life. DGG 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turning

Update: I think your reply must be based on abnormal experience or WP:OR. I've just looked online. I wasn't expecting many images of graphic material, but in a brief scan, I did find support that the material I added is more likely accurate however.

A page on dogbreedinfo.com contains images of rump-to-rump ties in at least three matings.
It also contains the statement:

• "As soon as the dogs lock the male jumps off, and turns butt to butt..."

Likewise under a comprehensive article on "stud dog management" this article states:

• "After the tie has been achieved, the dog will stop thrusting and will either remain on top of the bitch or will turn around backwards so the two are butt-to-butt. Try to make the couple as comfortable as possible..."

Other pages also stating that turning is normal, as I had written, (google link) include:

• "If a male and female actually mate, the male will turn around and they will stand butt to butt" [5]
• YouTube video of a mating [6]
• "I had went to call her inside when i saw she was stuck to this other dog (obviously breeding but butt-to-butt)" [7],
• "At first I did not realize what was going on because when I looked outside, they were backed up butt to butt" [8]
• "Sometimes happens when dogs have sex, the male dogs penis gets stuck in the female dogs vagina and the two dogs end up facing away from each other rump to rump, they may have to remain this way for some time." [9]
• "Sometime during the collection, the dog will usually lift his leg over the arm of the collector, as he would in adopting the rump-to-rump breeding posture of a natural tie..." [10] (PDF)
• "There's also the practice of turning around once locked in place, so that the partners end up rump-to-rump, which is normal for dogs" [11]
• "When tied they are rump to rump, in that way they cant be attacked when at their most vulnerable" [12]
• "Soon after the dog begins to ejaculate, he will often lift his hind limb as though attempting to step into the rump-to-rump position that occurs during natural breeding" [13]
• "Calmly assist the male in lifting his rear leg over the girl so they are standing butt to butt and keep them quiet for the duration of the tie." [14]

These, combined with photos I have myself obtained in other canine-related projects, would seem to strongly contradict your unsupported statements that this content is "pure crap" or "garbage", and that "dog anatomy simply does not permit it." Can you suggest an appropriate citation to support your contentions or that the deleted material was in fact factually in error? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you know that Wikipedia doesn't permit OR? Hadn't you noticed that at no stage did any of my opinions get into the article? And all I ever demanded was {{citation needed}}? I've looked through most of the references you offered, and it does indeed appear that my own experiences may have been misleading: if an entity doesn't do something, I should understand that it might be a matter of desire rather than compulsion -- "won't" and "can't" are not equivalent.

Having said that, I stand by my original objections. You have found some references, some obviously of better authority than others. Now use them. Make the section "not crap".  Gordon | Talk, 09:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'opinions' which got into the article were, that based on your personal views rather than any actual research undertaken and based upon a feeling that the factual material was explicit, you deleted a section, thereby expressing an opinion that the content did not meet in any way Wikipedia's content criteria for the article. Your words for the section included: "grot", "pure crap", "garbage", and "venial rubbish". That, I think, counts as pretty strong opinion.

It is hard to shake the impression that this deletion was not due to a lack of cites. Other sections lacked cites too, and the article was correctly tagged as awaiting specialist attention for that exact reason. Instead of researching and correcting, you deleted the entire topic of that section. Your initial explanations of this deletion centered upon disapproval of it, and personal experience not backed up even by a cursory check of other sources. You made no attempt to rectify it, or to retain any of the other information in the section which was not in question. You did not in fact tag any item as {{citation needed}}. You just mass-deleted the entire sub-topic.

I've re-reviewed that deleted section. It looks sensible, factual, clinical and relevant. I'm reinstating it. It would probably be best in future to bring any further deletion proposals of that section here so we may discuss, collaborate, and see if there is merit in them by careful consideration. I'll cite it up shortly but for now that's how I suggest progressing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: RFC posted in response to an attempt to Wikipedia:Gaming the system with WP:CITE. (diff) Note that the edit summary "This section has been deleted in the past due to lack of citations. CITE IT OR LOSE IT." is somewhat misleading - the only person who has deleted the section from this article (as opposed to the more general "canidae" articles where relevance was at issue) is user:GordonE, who mass-deleted it calling it "venial rubbish" and is now seeming to be gaming the CITE system.

The request for cites seems to be unrelated to any genuine request for verification and strongly connected with a wish to remove the section from its own article, as witness the above discussion and the DIFF itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Further practical comment to the RFC: you can find many print citations for the specifics of the tie and turning by searching Google Books for dog mating tie. Incidentally, it's true of wolves too. Tearlach 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC' Most articles benefit from more cites - in this case I think around 4 cites for the section might cover all the information contained. A civil request for cites will usually lead to a better article. And even if the request is less than civil, once the cites are in place your position in any arguement is fairly secure. The alternative to having a "cite" system that allows harsh demands for citations seems to be having one that opens the way to unverified, nonreputable material. The present system appears unfair to editors but in the best interests of an encyclopedia. SmithBlue 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"RFC I agree in general with SmithBlue; there is an appropriate number of quotes for a section of fairly general uncontroversial information, and 3 or 4 cites is about right. In a more specialized reference work it might be necessary to document every point, but WP is a general encyclopedia. A few cites is good even for the most obvious material, because the purpose of documentation is not only to permit verification, but to guide readers to more detailed material. And it is certainly not correct to target sexually oriented material with excessive technical requests, as was done in response to this section. Sexually oriented material on humans is enough of a problem in terms of POV, but dogs should be OK with everybody. Including children. Observing animals is the traditional way in which children learn these matters, even in much more repressive societies than ours;.DGG 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC I'd have to agree with SmithBlue and DGG. The section in question is fairly uncontroversial when compared with POV issues in other articles. I'll remind everybody to stay WP:CIVIL, even when it gets hot under the collar. Five citations, at most, should be more than sufficient to call the section adequately cited. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)