Talk:Rhodesian Ridgeback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
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 ยท refresh this page)

Initiated talk page, gave article a B class rating based on relatively good discussion of the Ridgeback. However, there definitely needs to be source citing (not performed since first formerly noted in September 2007). Also, IMHO the Wikipedia is not meant to be a listed of external sites, and the listings on the bottom need to be removed/cleaned up. Macboots (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Citations

Can someone flag this article for having no citations please? Call me BingBong

Done Macboots 05:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridge

Can someone tell me whether the edits about the ridge just made by anon user make any sense and can translate it to something that *does* make sense? It almost seems as if it makes sense enough that I'm not quite prepared to revert but I can't make head nor tail (nor spine nor ridge) out of it. Elf | Talk 06:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sort of like that I think -- sannse (talk) 18:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page makes an implication that the ridgeback is related to the hyena. This is not possible as the hyena is not a type of dog. Please clarify what is meant and if it is intended to establish some relationship between the dog and the hyena, please fix this misinformation. Thank you.

[edit] Origins of Breed

Anon user just changed Great Dane to Greyhound in what the boer farmers xed with mastiffs to produce this breed. One book (New Encycl of the Dog) says that mastiffs & scent hounds were xed with existing native dogs to produce the breed. Anyone have any additional reliable sources? I suspect that this is one of those "no one really knows exactly" breeds, but it would be nice to be able to quote likely info. Elf | Talk 20:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hottentot Hunting Dog

From what I know of this breed is that they were crossed with the hottentot hunting dogs, which were ridged. Legend has it that the hottentot dog was part Jackel. The hottentot's only bred the dogs with the ridge as it was the better hunter. I bred ridgebacks for many years and live with 8 of them, down from 15. Dereddog

No, the hottentot dog was not part Jackel. It is a type of dog called Pariah dog, though existing in many local variations all over southern Africa. The dog is today known as the Africanis, a umbrella name for the many different variations. Tbjornstad 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thai Ridgeback and Phu Quoc Dog

I removed the statement of the picture which indicated that the Thai Ridgeback (a.k.a. Mha Kon Klab) and the Phu Quoc Dog were two separate breeds. They are actually one and the same dog, though different variations. Tbjornstad 10:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sighthound/Scenthound

This dog is not a sighthound. -- Richard Hawkins 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ridgeback is a Hound, not a Sighthound. It has such also been included in the Scent Hound category of Wikipedia. Please clear up these incongruities -- Richard Hawkins 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

Boy, opinions run rampant here, don't they? The dog is classified as a hound, but the fact is, it is both site and scent. I can attest to that by experience - but you should keep in mind that there were many arguments concerning this and the fact that it was a difficult decision to classify it. Early in its history, it was considered a hunting dog. So, is it NOT a hunting dog now that it is considered a hound? If you want to go by what the kennel clubs say, thats fine. But it isn't always the whole story.

[edit] Shona Name

"Simba Inja" sounds to me like Ndebele. "Lion dog" in Shona is "Shumba Imbwa". Can anybody verify this name in either language? -- Vhata 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breeders' links - Advertising?

I have noticed that some of the "Information" links point to individual breeders - to me it seems like advertising. Should we remove those links, form a "Breeders" links section or just leave it as it is? I would appreciate your feedback! -- 83.131.50.16 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My thought -- associations, yes, breeders, no. Breeders are for-profit entities, and if you put in some, all the rest have the same right to be here. Associations provide breeder lists, so someone looking for a Ridgeback can find one that way. 64.122.31.130 -- 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I have removed the links to individual kennels. -- 83.131.35.113 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, 2 votes and voilla! its decided. First off, yes - those links that were removed went to breeder's pages - however, they were not advertisements. They specifically pointed to pages that were about the history of the breed. In some instances, the information on those pages actually had more in-depth knowledge regarding other questions that were being addressed earlier.
An advertisement is just that. None of those links pointed directly to advertisements.
I noticed that there was a link before about "Phylis" something or other. Sure, you click on that link and you are taken to a page that "appears" to be a history about someone in Ridgebacks. But, Low and behold - on the same page are links that go straight to advertisers (Breeders) pages. Now that, my friends, is about as transparent as you can get. Following that line of reasoning, One can write a little on some other breeder in history, show that there is a tie between the historical one and their own kennel based on bloodlines. Now they should be able to put their kennel up on the page as a link. To me this is exactly the same principle you voted on earlier.
I took a unilateral vote and removed that one myself. But, it will probably re-appear later.
Just because someone is a breeder and places puppies, doesn't mean their research should be nullified. I hope those links get put back. It was good reading, and shed a great deal of light on the history of the breed.
One other very important point that you may not realize. The real value in a link is in its credibility. Wikipedia may be credible, but their creators have decided that all links have a "NOFOLLOW" tag. This means that those links have absolutely no search engine value whatsoever. So, even if "advertisers" were to put links here - the Search Engines don't know they exist.
By the way - who determines that breeders are "for profit entities"? Not the poster of that statement, I'll bet. I doubt the poster has the credentials to make such an assumption. If you're breeding the right way, its an expensive proposition.
As nobody casted his/her "do not remove" vote after a month and a half, the decision was clear. There are interesting "bits and pieces" on many breeders' pages, but how to decide which to include, and which not? The info they have is either taken from existing books, or is actually unverifiable. So there is no need to include those links. And the fact is that breeders do sell their puppies for profit, and that every bit of advertising or "advertising" helps. Most people will look and say: "Wow, this breeder is featured on Wikipedia!" - and run to buy a puppy from him/her. BTW, search engines can be configured to honor "NOFOLLOW" tags or not - it is the decision of the search engine's owner, not Wikipedia's. - 89.172.0.103 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added "Hybrids" section

I and a number of my friends have had Ridgeback-Mixes. Great family dogs! I added a section on these because of all the questions I've gotten (and fables I've had to correct) over the years. Someone might want to clean it up a bit with language to "separate" the mixes from the AKCs. A neighbor had one AKC male, and a year later the neighbor on the other side had a few half-Ridgebacks, from a mother who was never seen outdoors except in a locked dog run! We never actually CAUGHT the sire picking the locks, but . . . Anyway, we took one of the pups and then adopted another RR-Mix a couple of years later. It's been a while since I've had room for a dog (currently in a mobile home park in the middle of town), but have land in Nevada where I'll be building a house next year, and a Ridgeback or RR-Mix will be part of the family again. -- 64.122.31.130 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort, but I believe that this section doesn't belong here, as it contains your individual experience that may or may not be the truth. It could also encourage others to mix Ridgebacks with other breeds! If you have any sources to back your claims feel to add them and undelete the section.-- 83.131.35.113 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as Margaret Lowthian Cook once said - "I wouldn't want to mix these dogs any more - they have enough mutt in them already" :)
I removed that bit about respect for the lion/bordering on fear. Respect is a human term, and tbh it just sounds silly in that context. A dog is not a person, doesnt understand the deeper meanings behind these words.
Well, there you go trying to pretend you know what Ridgebacks are thinking. What may sound silly to you, may not sound silly to others. And, in fact - that statment is a paraphrase of S.H. Stewart of The Rhodesian Ridgeback International Foundation.
Who are you?
And who are you? It is polite to sign your additions to the discussion page with four tildes (~). Also try to keep this page structured so that we can easily know who is replying to whom. Thank you! 89.172.0.103 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
My point in the question "Who are you?" is with respect to a man with a well known reputation in the Ridgeback world, and you don't agree with what he said. So, again I ask - who are you to decide that someone of renown cannot be quoted? Amusing attempt to change the issue, so I give you credit for that.
By the way, I didn't sign with 4 tildes, and if it appeared that way it was an accident. But even if I did, it is irrelevant to the topic. Congrats though, on another attempt to change the issue.
What I am noticing here is an individual that makes a practice of assumptions about intent and without research. I know you may "sound" authoritative, as direct statements often do - but they only sound that way to the uninitiated.
My request to you would be to take a little more care - perhaps gain a little more information before unilaterally making a decision about what is to stay, and what is to go on wikipedia. Otherwise, you and I will have a continual "butting of heads".
You are replying to the wrong person. I neither removed the "bordering on fear" comment nor wrote the comment that made you ask "who are you?". Please try to maintain structure and sign when adding comments. It's getting really hard to follow who wrote what! 78.0.139.217 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)