Talk:Dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Good article Dog was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Dogs
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-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)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Incorrect terminology

Under the section called "Smell" it says: "Those with more natural ear shapes, like those of wild canids like the fox, generally hear better than those with the floppier ears of many domesticated species" despite the fact that there is only one species of domesticated canid. It should read "...floppier ears of many domesticated breeds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.209.156 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dog abuse

I don't think the dog abuse section should go anywhere, it is vital to raise awareness about animal cruelty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamukaGirl (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

nodles. It shouldn't be done. Whoever does it should be killed. It's just like killing another human. The dog abuse section is wholly without merit. Signs of abuse - the dog is bruised or has broken bones or eye injuries or is burnt oh really? waste of space -JDHannan (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire dog abuse section can go. Need a Dog Laws section instead, with refs to all relevant laws, including animal cruelty laws, BSL etc.--Afru (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some problems with the article

There seems to be a lot of words spelled in the American way i.e. "behavioral" instead of "behavioural", and the word "amazing" next to the picture of three dogs doesn't seem right in an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyre (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually American words are perfectly okay for an encyclopedia. :) - However British subjects require British spelling, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the word "amazing" from the caption.Coaster1983 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point is in complaining about American spelling. Either way, one of us is going to have to adapt. In this case, it's our British (and Commonwealth) cousins; in other cases, it's the Americans. It's not worth complaining about. CsikosLo (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style says, "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial.", and says, "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic)." See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feral Dogs

Something about what is said about feral dogs in the article doesn't match with observations on feral dogs. Actually it doesn't even match with some articles in wikipedia. E.G. the Dingo is a feral dog too and they are excellent hunters, as well as the Carolina Dogs, who even seem to have some unique hunting skills. It's also wrong to assume that feral dog packs lack the social structure of wolf packs, you should browse for "Tuscany Dog Project" (thats a study concerning this topic) and the dogs there, although not completely feral, have a very complex social structure in their pack (check the german version of wikipedia if you like, there's a full article). Also wolves don't form packs on general, in Italy and in Germany as well many packs only consist of the parents, their current litter, and the litter of the last year. In Italy, there are many solitary wolves and many who only live in pairs, as well as quite a few packs of feral and semi-feral dogs who can hunt prey wolves aren't capable of and who are competing or interacting with wolves (depends on the situation). So all in all feral dogs aren't that poor.--168.224.32.15 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The dingo has had thousands of years to revert back to a semi-ativistic state. Domestic dogs havent had that amount of time to become fully fledged wild animals.

While domestic dogs do form packs, there is little monogamy, cooperative hunting, or mutual puppy care.129.12.200.49 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In all cases? If known cases of adoption, care for puppies by aunts (I admit, there is no prove for care by males), monogamy and cooperative hunting. As a matter of fact, these things aren't as common among wolves as most people think. Don't you think, you generalize to much? E.G. Erik Zimen (a famous cynologist in Europe) witnessed no monogamy in his poodle group. Observations by Eberhard Trummler and Elizabeth Marshall Thomas came to different results (the first observed dingo/wolf/dog-mixes and the latter Sibirian Huskies), as well as Guenther Bloch in his studies in Italy (two groups and one pack of near-feral dogs, mostly or entirely mongrels). You should keep in mind, that there isn't much data concerning this topic and it wouldn't be the first time that an observer didn't really observe and just judged by what he/she already thought to be true. Remember, for a long time people thought, that wolves would generally form packs with an alpha on the top and an omega on the bottom of the pack or that dogs would always search the nearness of humans, because "they are born that way". Both "Facts" have been proven to be wrong since at least the 80's, although they are still in the mind of many people.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laughter in dogs?

It seems like the whole paragraph was POV and/or derived from unreliable sources, so I commented it out for now.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog&diff=189737773&oldid=189712071

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous substances

Other than the danger of toxoplasmosis from eating cat feces, does any real harm result from dogs eating feces? If so, this should be stated. Also, I highly doubt that eating United States pennies is the most common cause of zinc poisoning in dogs worldwide ;-) 82.6.174.71 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I had the same question...why is this in the dangerous substances category since it doesn't appear to actually be dangerous, distasteful as it may be to humans? CsikosLo (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too long; a lot of unnesessary details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afru (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific classification

Needs clarification and links to Dingo, New Guinea Singing Dog. Both are registered as dog breeds, while recognized as different species than Canis l familiaris --Afru (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Also, on trinomial authority, there is an impression that the scientific name Canis lupus familiaris is by Carolus Linnaeus.

Linnaeus initially, at 1758, classified the dog as Canis Familiaris (feral) and Canis familiarus domesticus.


Linnaeus' classification was revised at 1993 by American Society of Mammologists (as per internet search), and Canis Lupus Familiaris was accepted by US Taxonomic Directory (and by what other authorities ?). While the entire subject needs a long research, article may benefit from a correction for the reason that Linneaus had not classified the dog as Canis lupus familiaris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afru (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

There seems to be a paper saying that Indian subcontinent may be the cradle of dogs. Blufox (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No, it's saying that Indian wolves are very divergent from wolves to the north, a group which includes dogs. Speciate (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And it's not the first time, that people classify the Indian or Arabian Wolf as the Dogs ancestor. Til now, no one is sure (some still say, that the dog orginated from a different dingo-like Canid of Europe [note there is no clear evidence for this and no other canid since the last Ice Age survived in the same area as the wolf {jackals, coyotes and dhole all dissapear from an area were the wolf settles down, so it's unlikely that there was a another canid in the same area as the wolf}]) were dogs originated or if they originated from different populations, or from one population and later mixed with others.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smell grammar problem

In the "Smell" section, it reads "although once a matter of debate, it now seems to be well established that dogs can distinguish two different types of scents when trailing, an air scent from some person or thing that has recently passed by, as well as a ground scent that remains detectable for a much longer period." The part I've bolded is the end of one independent clause and the beginning of another, separated by a comma :-O Can someone who can edit the page fix this? 68.101.75.128 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dithered over whether to change it to a semicolon (treating the second clause as a closely-related independent clause) or to a colon (treating the second clause as a list – though of just two items). I looked to Strunk & White (Do not join independent clauses by a comma), and found that they say: "If two or more clauses, grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction, are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon." However, the second clause inthe requoted fragment isn't grammatically complete. The requoted sentence fragment is the second independent clause of a larger sentence which already separates two independent clauses with a semicolon. I ended up rewriting the requoted fragment as , "although once a matter of debate, it now seems to be well established that dogs can distinguish two different types of scents: an air scent from some person or thing that has recently passed by, and a ground scent that remains detectable for a much longer period." I should have paid more attention to my 5th grade English teacher. (I clearly have too much time on my hands today) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earliest dog domestication

from the article on 'Natufians:

Domesticated dog

It is at Natufian sites that the earliest archaeological evidence for the domestication of the dog is found. At the Natufian site of Ein Mallaha in Israel, dated to 12 000 BP, the remains of an elderly human and a four-to-five-month-old puppy were found buried together.[3] At another Natufian site at the cave of Hayonim, a man was found buried with two canids.[3] zgarbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.157.197 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that the article currently dates dog domestication earlier than this (between 17,000 and 14,000 BP) but does not cite a supporting source. The Natufian culture article, however, does support the 12,000 BP date with a cite of Clutton-Brock, Juliet (1995), “Origins of the dog: domestication and early history”, in Serpell, James, The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people (2003 reprinting ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 10-12 . I have not changed the unsupported info in the article, but I believe that it would be OK to change the unsupported article info to the later cite-supported date, citing the supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

dogs were not demestacated they were here before human kind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.186.133 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know were you got that number, but in Germany, they found a skeleton of a domestic dog, that is, as far as I know 2000 years older. And that one is widely known.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian references

This article not only uses American spelling. It lumps Canada in with the United States. In one sentences it lists countries starting with the U.K. this way: "U.K.,..., and US/Canada. It should say. "UK.,..., Canada, and the United States. (By the way Canadians have their own spellings, although we put up with American spelling when it's pushed on us. We are a Commonwealth country and are more comfortable with our own spellings or British spellings.) I've noticed Wikepedia articles lump Canada and the United States as some kind of monolithic North America (but ignore the fact that Mexico and the Caribbean countries also share this continent.) Canada and the United States are not the same in many respects. For instance, Mongrel is not necessarily a degrogratory term in Canada. It is used interchangeably with other terms, such as mutt. No offense intended to the animal. 137.186.177.84 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... The article mentions Canada just once; in that sentence which says "US/Canada" — "Based on questionnaire surveys of owners in the UK, Denmark, and the USA/Canada, the median longevity of most dog breeds is between 10 and 13 years.", citing four supporting sources. The first three of the four sources provide info about the UK and Denmark; the fourth source, here, speaks of five separate data sources, which it names as follows:
  1. Vet School Data 1980-1990
  2. (UK) KC Survey 2004
  3. British Owners 1999
  4. Denmark KC Survey 2003
  5. USA/Can. Single Breed Survey Averages
That fifth data source referred to as "USA/Can. Single Breed Survey Averages" turns out to be averages from several surveys which covered dogs located in the U.S. and in Canada, as further described on this page.
I don't think anyone set out to slight Canada or Canadians here.
Wikipedia:MOS#National_varieties_of_English says, "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others." Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) summarizes spelling differences between several national varieties of English. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary article says that Canadian spelling has features of both British and American spellings – colour, centre, and travelling, but tire, aluminum, and program.
As far as WP articles lumping the US and Canada together goes, (Hmmmm....) looking at the various North American countries and territories, I have the impression that the US and Canada are closer to one another in many ways than either of them are to any of the others (Yes, I would guess that the US is closer in many ways to Canada than it is to its own North American territories of The US Virgin Islands, Navassa Island (uninhabited), and Puerto Rico). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting reference

Not sure where or if this could/should be included in the article, but I'll put it out there should anyone find any use for it: "As we were walking about, Madame de Montholon drove away a dog that had come near her.--'You do not like dogs, Madam?' said the Emperor.--'No, Sire.'--'If you do not like dogs, you do not like fidelity; you do not like those who are attached to you; and, therefore, you are not faithful.'--'But . . . but . . . ' said she--'But . . . but . . . ' repeated the Emperor, 'where is the error in my logic? Refute my arguments if you can!'" - Napoleon Bonaparte, The Opinions and Reflections of Napoleon, ed. Lewis Claflin Breed (Boston: The Four Seas Company, 1926), 387. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eye color

I once visited a pet shop in the Philippines which had a white dog with some black spots. Its right eye was brown, whereas its left one was gray. Is this normal? Does this variation in eye color affect the dog's eyesight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.52.18 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is everyone offended by the use of the word bitch?

Everytime I type in bitch someone deletes and types female. Why, bitch is the correct term for a female canid. I don't use bitch as an offensive word and I have never called a woman a bitch so I don't use it to offend anyone. It is the correct term for a female canid, so would everyone please stop being offended by it. I mean, when I watch the UK dog show they always use the word bitch to describe a female from a male. Everyone can take it offensively, but I will keep on using it.

actually, i've only seen the word applied for (some) canines, and almost exclusively by "enthusiasts"/breeders. female vulpines (and possibly other fox-like canids) are called "vixen", of course. - Metanoid (talk, email) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
See Bitch, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bitch, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitch, http://www.bartelby.com/68/58/858.html, etc. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
yes, yes, i know the word "bitch" is in the dictionary; but this is an encyclopedia. why don't you go over to Dog or one of the many entries for domestic breeds, and then complain if you're censored? - Metanoid (talk, email) 22:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

just a quick note. reference number 59 states that jesus is quoted as calling non-hebrews dogs. This is incorrect as ANY casual reading of the referenced source will show. check it on http://www.blueletterbible.org/ using the cited passage Mark 7:24-30 using ANY version of the bible you like. At any rate, what is this doing in an article about dogs anyhow? totally irrelevant. Zuck (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree after reading the source. I've removed that sentence. Franamax (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah that is so not true ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Someone wrote "hellooo" in tne introductory paragraph. I can't edit because of the semiprotection status, but someone should take care of this tiny little nuisance.MosKillinest (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A jumpy dog

I have a husky who is approx 9 years of age and he in the last 2 months appeasrs to have something wrong with her. She is so jumpy, scared her entire body jumps, she gets startled all the time over anything and everything is quite sad to watch. Does anyone have any ideas on what could be causing this and what might help? Please email me at eeweep61169@yahoo.com I would really appreciate it.

Thank you, Michelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.183.93 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a social network. Sorry, but this is not the place to post this. Sorry.

[edit] Please Remember

Please remember that this is not a social network. That means do not say things like " email me if you know how to help" or "if you have options that could help with my problem fell free to call". The reader want to know about the object, in this case about dogs. They do not want to know about the stories of your dogs or what happend to your dog. Please provide accurate information aboput the subject you are talking about. Reminder- Children use this site for school,there has to be accurate information for them. If you do not know a lot about the subject then do not fix things and type things about it in the paragraphs. Wikipedia is being told not to be used in the schools because of its lack of accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.21.14 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 24.63.21.14. This not the place to post things about your dog; millions of dogs are like that, and yes, saying things like, "e-mail me at_____" is not appropriate. People do not want to read what happened to a dog. They want real information; however, the answer could be hidden in a google search. Don't rely on wikipedia to help you woth such problems, as in repeated edits can get you blocked.

I am sooooo cool! 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] No regurgitating of food?

In the article, it was stated, that domestic dogs, do not regurgitate food for their young. This is certainly true in many cases, however, I wouldn't be so sure if that is really the norm since there have been documented cases where the bitches did it. I corrected this part of the article and referenced my sources. The sources are in german so I would be happy If somebody knew the english titles of the books.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)