Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Contents

Second section of history

Here's a draft of the second section:

In 1997, the SSDCA was inactive for a year. During that time, then SSDCA Vice-President, Gary Allison, accepted responsibility for running a club for the breed and so the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. In 1998, due to a disagreement with the ISSR rules, the ISSDC annouced they would open their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. The SSDCA reopened at this time.
In 2001, the ISSDC and its registry were closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed registry functions for the inactive ISSDC club. Also in 2001, the National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established. During 2002, The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) and the United Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club Registry (USSDCR) were established. The USSDCR closed in 2003.
In 2004, the ISSDC was reorganized as a parent club for the NSBR, the SSBA and the TSSR. The ISSDC petitioned the UKC for recognition of the Shiloh Shepherd, but was denied. Today, the databases of these registries contain Shiloh pedigrees taken in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), and pedigrees of 45,000 GSD ancestors, but no LMX data.
As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries.

I think the final paragraph needs a bit more work, unless we're going to write a section on the dispute. Let me know if I've got dates or names down incorrectly. Thanks .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I almost forgot. Since we mentioned the ISSRs number of registrations, can we get that info for the other registries as well? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Clarified statement about dog clubs, removed opinion "strict". Thanks for the suggestions. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been involved with the "dog world" for nearly 5 decades now, but I don't ever recall the existence of a *breed* that did not have a breed standard!

Yes, over the past 2 decades a lot of "registries" have been started for "new/rare breeds" but none of them (that I know of) have done so without a Breed Standard. In my experience, I have also heard of a "new" group splinting off from the original because they did not agree on the Breed Standard being used, and would then write their own ... that may or may not be recognized by others, but I have always seen these things progress decently & in order!

http://www.petplace.com/dogs/breed-clubs/page1.aspx Please note There are breeds that end up with two clubs who disagree on breed function, or breed standards, and choose to register their breed with different registries. The breed standard set for a specific breed with the AKC may not be the same as with the UKC, not only because the registries may differ in their criteria, but also because more than one breed club may have existed, thereby creating two different breed philosophies of form and function. One club (be it National Breed Club or organized fancy group) may have divided and chosen different paths, such as with the famous Jack Russell Terrier also known as the Parson Russell Terrier, depending on to which registry your referring.

The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard was written by ME, is still owned by me and copyright protected http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/publicNotice.htm

Wouldn't it be fair to the Wikipedia readers, that come here for honest information, if they could see all of the facts? I agree that if a few people want to represent their dogs as 'Shiloh Shepherds" I can't stop them from exploiting my name, but they have obviously refused to follow my vision (as can be proven by the variety of GSD's that they have put "shiloh" papers on) .. so shouldn't they at least have to provide a copy of a Breed Standard that EACH of the registries is using?? MaShiloh 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets make sure we don't venture off into attacks; things have been going along much better recently, and I'd really like to avoid having the situation degenerate again.
As far as breed standards go, it appears that the NSBR is using the ISSR breed standard [1], the TSSR links to ARBAs copy of the ISSR breed standard [2] and the SSBA also uses the ISSR breed standard [3]. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


History section of article - Second Section

At this time, the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article's contributing editors, representing the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and ISSDC have read the most recent history section proposal and have mutually agreed (and asked me to post their individual feelings) that this version of the Shiloh Shepherd Dog history just does not accurately or adequately represent the factual history of their registries and the ISSDC club. While the editor's efforts are much appreciated and she is thanked for her contributions, these contributors will now continue efforts to work towards a full and accurate article, while doing so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies of good-faith, neutrality, verifiability, and civility.

Therefore, the following history 2nd section proposal is submitted for consideration

In 1997, Ms. Barber stated she could no longer afford to maintain the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America. A mutual agreement was reached and contracts were drawn for her then SSDCA Vice-President to assume all responsibilities and operations of the Shiloh Shepherd dog club. With the acceptance and transfer of all currently active SSDCA memberships, the newly named International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club commenced active operation.
In 1998, Ms. Barber severed relations with the ISSDC club and reopened the SSDCA club. Many ISSDC members and long-time breeders chose to remain with the ISSDC club.
Due to inter-club conflicts, the ISSDC then found it necessary to establish the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club Registry. In 2001 the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) assumed registry functions for the then inactive ISSDC club.
Also in 2001, the National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established to provide an alternative registry service for Shiloh Shepherd breeders and fanciers, focusing on health, temperament and litter-mate information. During 2002, The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) was created, requiring additional health testing.
In 2004, with a mission emphasizing unity and shared vision, including Shiloh Shepherd health, promotion, advancement and protection, the ISSDC was reorganized as a parent club for the NSBR, the SSBA, and the TSSR registries. Breeders affiliated with these registries continue to breed toward the original Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard.
Today, the databases of the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA registries contain extensive detailed data, including complete Shiloh pedigrees obtained in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), as well as 45,000 GSD ancestors.
As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries.
Additional information about this breed can be found in several all-breed publications, websites, and books. The Shiloh Shepherd breed has grown in number and popularity, and it continues to be embraced by rare breed organizations and dog fanciers alike.

Thank you MilesD. 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Having seen this proposal, I can tell you I have several serious concerns about this version:

  • "In 1997, Ms. Barber stated she could no longer afford" - appears to be opinion/misleading, please provide a reference
  • "A mutual agreement was reached and contracts were drawn for her then SSDCA Vice-President to assume all responsibilities and operations of the Shiloh Shepherd dog club" - please provide a reference, it appears that a seperate club was opened
  • "Many ISSDC members and long-time breeders chose to remain with the ISSDC club." - avoid weasel words like "Many", provide numbers and facts please
  • "Due to inter-club conflicts" - this is misleading at best given this letter [4]
  • "focusing on health, temperament and litter-mate information" - avoid self promotion
  • "requiring additional health testing" - please provide a reference
  • "with a mission emphasizing unity and shared vision, including Shiloh Shepherd health, promotion, advancement and protection" - avoid self promotion
  • "complete Shiloh pedigrees obtained in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP)" - please provide a reference and clarify "obtained"
  • "Additional information about this breed can be found in several all-breed publications, websites, and books. The Shiloh Shepherd breed has grown in number and popularity, and it continues to be embraced by rare breed organizations and dog fanciers alike." - doens't really belong in history, maybe a future of the breed type section would be appropriate
  • Is there a reason for exluding the United Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club Registry?
  • Is there a reason for exluding the bid for UKC recognition? This seems highly relevant to a breed history.

Could you please do me the courtesy of clarifying what, if anything you disagree with in my proposal? It would be rather difficult to work on it otherwise. Also, do you intend to provide data on the number of dogs being registered so that could be added to the history as well? Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Jareth, I'd like to thank you for working so hard on this! I admit that I haven't followed this from the very beginning so I apologize if I say anything that has been brought up before. I've been trying to stay out of the discussion because I didn't want to confuse the issue any more than it already is, but I have a few comments on your summary:

1. You said "In 1997, the SSDCA became inactive for a year" then went on to talk about the various other registries starting up, closing down, etc. Could you please mention that the SSDCA was reopened (and when) and that it has been in continued existence ever since?

2. You've asked for registration numbers from the other registries, but by looking at the lists of breeders in the various registry websites you'll see that there are many breeder's who are affiliated with multiple registries. Since they are registering their dogs in more than one registry the totals you receive will be inaccurate because the same dogs will be counted over and over again. The same goes for the breeders, if they are affiliated with multiple registries, the number of breeders that are actually out there is artificially inflated and the general public won't get a true feel for how big (or small) these groups really are.

ISSDC - http://www.shilohs.org/ISSDC/ISSDCPageBreederProfiles.htm
TSSR - http://www.shilohshepherdtssr.com/breeders.htm
NSBR - http://www.shilohregistry.com/breeders.html
SSBA - http://www.shilohshepherd.org/breeders.html

The ISSR is the only registry that does not allow dual registration so you will not find any of the breeders who are in good standing with the ISSR listed on any of the other registry websites. Here is the link to our Licensed Breeder list: http://www.shilohshepherds.org/licensedBreeders.htm If you DO find any of our breeders listed with the other registries please let us know, because as Ricky said, "Lucy, you got some splainin to do!" :-)

- Debbie 24.189.231.226 04:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified the statements about the dog clubs in the first paragraph, let me know if you think that better explains the history. We actually don't have to inlcude numbers from the other registries, but was giving it a shot for consistency. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Disputed tag

Since this tag has been on the article for quite some time, I wanted to check and see what the remaining disputes are so we can begin to work on those. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedigrees v. DATA

I hate to jump in here again, but I have had a lot of complaints from ISSR breeders that have been concerned over this statement

< Today, the databases of the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA registries contain extensive detailed data, including complete Shiloh pedigrees obtained in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), as well as 45,000 GSD ancestors. >

I hope that the following information will clear this up ... and I have asked Karen to please search out the proper documentation that can prove what I am stating

1. The 'shiloh' pedigrees obtained in 96 consisted of TCCP "alpha listings" that Steve would send me so that I could correct/verify what he had entered, and provide pedigrees that contained any missing data as needed. Since I was sending him boxes of pedigrees & breeders books to sift through, this process went on for several years!! Furthermore, the listing that was stolen was actually *run* in 92/93, not in 96 ... it was just stolen in 96!!!

Of course, since that time we have moved forward with TONS of new (and added TONS of additional old) data!!! Therefor this old *corrupt* listing is hardly anything to brag about!

2. I would also like to see the actual DATA (not just AKC pedigree (name) info) that is being claimed for the 45,000 dogs ... since THAT information was in my PRIVATE stud books, and was never stolen, loaned, or rented, etc. to anyone. As a matter of fact, I can assure you that Steve (and his wife Barbara) were more protective over those records then I am over my children/grandchildren etc.!!

So if these people somehow managed to get copies of this *private* data, I would like to see proof On the other hand, if they are just talking about "names" ... then they must mean PEDIGREE DATA?? In that case, this information can be FREELY obtained via web sites all over the Internet ... hundreds of thousands of AKC names can be downloaded, so I would hardly consider this as pertinent to their *registries* LOL MaShiloh 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but this sounds like it is based on your own personal knowledge of events. I hope we're not putting anything into the article which isn't verifiable based on reliable sources, or which draws on original research. -Will Beback 23:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal knowledge regarding my dogs (since 1962) can be verified by many people that met me over the decades, or co-owned dogs with me, or even have copies of my old Newsletters & some of my published articles!! MaShiloh 02:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


We're really trying Will :) Unfortunately, the Shiloh doesn't have a great deal of third party information, especially when it comes to the history. We're currently using mostly brochures, books and newsletters that were generated by the various registries, the breed founder and the breed clubs for the History section, which is why we're trying to pare it down to only verifiable facts.
I'm sure the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA registries can clarify what they mean by the shiloh pedigrees and GSD data. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for reply from NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC and Independent editors

1) Jareth said:"Could you please do me the courtesy of clarifying what, if anything you disagree with in my proposal? It would be rather difficult to work on it otherwise. Also, do you intend to provide data on the number of dogs being registered so that could be added to the history as well? Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (see your question above)
2) Jareth said: "I asked for clarifications from Tina for a few points I was researching, as I planned on asking contributors from the other registries if I had clarifications when I got to that portion…...:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)" (see Archive #6 – Content #3-“Shilohs or GSD”)
3) Jareth said: "For the second section, I still need a couple of pieces of information. Why were the other registries started (NSBR, TSSR, NSBA)and please, lets keep this to facts, no attacking. I also need to verify when they were started, I have the NSBR in 2001 and the TSSR and NSBA both in 2002 -- are those correct? Also, the ISSDC was re-started in 2004, correct? Please let me know any additional information you feel should be in the history for these registries -- again, facts only please (dates, etc just like the above). The history section is not a place for controversy; if necessary, we can create a section on the controversy and discuss the two POVs there, but lets please not fight to put it in the history. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)" (see Archive #6 - Content #6-"History proposal and things still needed")
4) MilesD. Said: "Hi Jareth, After working very hard on this to remove all emotion and present verifiable facts for the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC section of the history of the Shiloh Shepherd, we have come up with the following (Note:Our proposal as listed above was included verbatim here in our email to you). We ask that you: Please review our submission to see if it meets your request for NPOV and if so, please include it in your proposed history section. If not, please advise me as to what changes you suggest" (see our email to you 1/15 337pm)
5) Jareth included in her proposal: "The ISSDC petitioned the UKC for recognition of the Shiloh Shepherd, but was denied".(see Jareth's proposal above "History section two")
6) Jareth edited her proposal: "In 1998, after a disagreement over changes in the ISSR rules" to now read "In 1998, due to a disagreement with the strict ISSR rules" AND added ISSDC history to read "but no LMX data."(see talk page history 1/17 - "Suggested Changes" Jareth)
However:
You never did ask us for anything, neither clarifications nor expressions of any concerns re: our proposal to you, as you stated you would do and as you did many times with Ms. Barber, either on the talk page or through email, before you posted your version of our history in your proposal.
You never did ask for anything, neither clarifications nor expressions of any concerns re: our proposal to you, before you excluded our submission for why the "other" registries were started, in your posted proposal of our history. What verification did you accept which justified your "changed" version of our submitted history and your subsequent edits?
You never did ask for anything, neither clarifications nor expressions of any concerns re: our proposal to you, when you didn't respond to our email containing this proposal and asking for your suggestions if you saw problems with it, before you posted your version of our history in your proposal.
You never did ask for anything, neither clarifications nor expressions of any concerns re: our proposal to you, before you included a statement we had not provided, about some history between our club (ISSDC) and another club (UKC), in your posted proposal of our history.
You never did ask for anything, neither clarifications nor expressions of any concerns re: our proposal to you, before you made two edits to your original proposal yesterday re: our registries’/club’s histories, without posting to the talk page that these edits had been suggested, added, verified or what editor even requested them, when you inserted them less than two hours after you posted your original proposal of our history. (see History "making suggested changes")
Even while appreciating the best of “good-faith” intentions, having been only negligibly included in the writing of your proposal and certainly not accurately represented in its resulting contents about the histories of these editors' registries/clubs, there was no choice but to submit this same verifiable proposal to the talk page for community involvement and "fresh eyes".
In light of these circumstances, could you please extend us the courtesy of clarifying why you now want our input and participation in your proposal, after the facts relayed above? MilesD. 01:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Everyone should be familiar with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, -Will Beback 01:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Wow. I'm honestly stunned by that response. I have requested data from the other registries multiple times, asked for clarification and spent countless hours answering private email. I'm shocked that you feel I didn't accept or solicit input for the section. After all this, I was sent a history that you expected me to propose; unfortunately, I'm not a puppet. I did not request that Tina write the first section, so I'm not certain why you felt I would simply regurgitate what you wrote for the second. I have spent weeks researching everything I possibly could about the breed and its history. I have poured through newletters, letters, brochures, websites and all while attempting to maintain a spirit of cooperation on this talk page.
There's no reason that my version has to be used; it was simply an attempt to remove everything but fact and at least have a history for this poor article. I can cite sources for each sentence in that version and intended to eventually footnote the entire article per the manual of style. You're welcome to comment on it now after its been posted exactly as was done with the first section. I did remember to mention it was a draft, correct? I posted it before I felt it was polished because you and other members of the other registries demanded it via email. I have lost track of who's who in the more than *100* messages I now have in my email regarding this article.
I guess I was wrong in thinking that a third party version could be worked on and not discarded out of hand. The two groups intent on this article tend to summarily dismiss each others suggestions, start fights and call reinforcements which certainly is counter-productive to writing the article. I'd be more than happy to start from the version you posted and work out a consensus from there, I was just rather surprised to have such hard work completely dismissed. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

History Article

Jareth moved the "newly proposed" 1st section of the History section to the Article page, but also removed the current 2nd section which involves information about the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and ISSDC. Although I have concerns re: consensus being reached on the 1st section, I left that edit in place until further discussion. However, since the "new" 2nd section is still in development, I think it is better to leave the "most recent" 2nd section in place until consensus is reached on a "new" version. This way, readers on the site are not completely deprived from reading about other existing Shiloh Shepherd registries and their parent club. Thank you. MilesD. 69.173.135.114 02:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The "newly proposed" first section from January 13th? [5] You mean the one you stated you (and the other groups) approved of in a private email, but suggested you would not post that approval to the talk page unless I posted the second second of the history that you wrote? The one that not a single person has raised an objection to since it was posted almost a week ago? I'm not certain what concerns you could have about consesus for it at this point.
Jareth, I'm sorry you have completely misconstrued that email. What I did say exactly in my first paragraph to you was "When you put out the ISSR section of the history proposal I told this group (in their chat forum) that we should come together, write our section, submit it to you privately (to avoid fighting on the talk page), NOT post anything (comments, responses to PAs, nada') on the talk page or engage Tina in any way, wait to hear from you for changes, and (note: not "then") publicly post on the talk page our agreement with the first section of your proposal (the ISSR history)." There is nothing in that email about either myself or any other editors suggesting our acceptance of your proposal for section 1 be made contingent upon your acceptance of our proposed section 2.
I feel that I must say at this point, that at the close of my very first email to you on Dec. 28, I said "I will not burden you with "private" remarks in the future". In your response on Jan 3, you said, with regard to my promise. "Don't worry about emailing me privately -- there are some things better not said on the Talk page". I trusted you and I have respected this confidentiality and have not posted anything on this talk page that you have said to me re: this article or any other editors involved. Because I agreed with your statement that there are mutual comments exchanged between email writers which are better not said in public forums. Therefore, at this time, I think if you wish to discuss the contents of our private emails further, we should do that privately also. Thank you. 69.173.135.114 05:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC) MilesD.
That is not the email I'm referring to however, there's a good point there, its another example of an email in which it appears that there was agreement for the first section. Since there were no objections raised via email or on the talk page since the first section was posted a week ago, I felt it would be prudent to post it and move on; there's still a lot to do on the article (and others, SIBO was just created yesterday). If anyone still has concerns with the first section, I'm sure we can all work on those.
I would not have felt so inclined had you not made a long post belittling my efforts, misrepresenting the facts of our dealings and posting some of those "private" email messages yourself. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I refactored the second section so that the information did not duplicate the first two paragraphs. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that a lot of ISSR people still have a problem with your numbers!! Can you please clarify exactly what you mean??

Let's take this example http://www.royalair.org/lilly%20pedigree.htm You can clearly see "shiloh" dogs mixed in with GSD's .. all are AKC registered, pedigrees (ancestral data) is available via the internet, so you can't claim any *registry rights* to this (I certainly never did!) This is not the same as LMX data that lists details about EACH dog, as well as his/her littermates!!!

Here's another one http://www.royalair.org/brandy%20%205%20Generation.html ... please note it was issued by the AKC .... you can't possibly claim that you have LMX data on these dogs too?? What about the dogs I produced at my kennel back in the 60's .... 70's .... 80's ... 90's ... etc.... How did you get MY private data???

Here's another dog that you are breeding from http://www.forevergsds.com/Silver_Rose_Of_Selah.htm You claim that she is registered as a shiloh but yet all of her ancestors have AKC papers ... so by what power can YOU register her as a 'shiloh'? OK ... I can hear it now ... you are going to say that if *Tina* can do it, so can you ... Well, I *was* (and still am) SHILOH SHEPHERDS, and yes, I *can* prove it http://www.shilohshepherds.org/1970's.htm I am sure that a lawyer could even manage to get a statement from the AKC that would prove how many litters I registered, alone & on C/O since the 60's!! My newsletters also prove those facts!! I had intimate knowledge of the dogs that I owned/bred .. that's why I was able to collect so much data on so many dogs over the 4 decades that I devoted my life to that project!! This information was never made public ... so I will ask you once again ... HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO STEAL IT?? MaShiloh 03:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, lets calm down again. Remember, we need to focus on the article not a discussion of what is or is not going on with anyone involved in the article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Jareth is right. This article is not about any of the editors, and our personal knowledge material should not be relied upon anyway. Let's stick to discussing sources and content. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Respect the Founder

I am not a Shiloh owner but I have been enjoying reading about the breed for many years now. I am not a shiloh owner yet because it hasn't been the right time. My education about the breed has been both full of excitement and sorrow. I, for one, totally respect what Tina Barber is doing. My understanding is that Tina has been fighting, for a very long time, to stop any registry that does not uphold her strict breeding requirements (which I understand to be all except the ISSR). She has a breed standard out there that, it appears, everyone is using, but it also sounds like she has set up strict breeding guidelines for the safety of the breed. It appears, to me, that these other registries are not abiding by her strict breeding requirements that she feels is necessary to produce the best of the best.

My understanding of her painful fighting and arguing is that if these other registries want to exclude themselves from the strict breeding requirements that's she's set up then they are going to create dogs that will have a lot of problems and she doesn't want her breed, that she has developed, to be attached to those dogs when down the road they're aggressive and tempermental and start having all kinds of problems and that's why she doesn't want the Shiloh Shepherd name to be able to be attached to these other registires. I understand that there are already a lot of people out there who don't like "Shiloh Shepherds" due to bad encounters with "Shilohs" who ended up being dogs that didn't come from the ISSR. I've picked this up from reading different people's testimonies on the Shiloh Shepherd Forums.

All in all, I wish that the author of this article would commit to listenting to what Tina Barber has to say. Please respect her and all the hard work she has put in over these past 4 decades. If the article describes the other registries as equal to hers then it would do her an injustice and work against all she's worked for. If it's going to put in all the registries then it needs to tell how they are all different.

It appear to me that the other registries are not nearly as strict or as well informed as the ISSR about breeding and if this is true then perhaps it should be made known.64.136.26.228 04:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Sue

Hi Sue,

While your support of Tina Barber is admirable, there is no need to make assumptions and accusations toward the other registries. In reality, these other registries also have strict rules, some even more strict in their requirements for health testing than the ISSR. What is great in this Country of ours is that people are free to make choices and develop competing organizations. Further, our Country protects us from monopolies. Actually it is healthy that the consumer can make a choice on which organization meets their requirements, for it can at times forces competitors to raise their bar.

As for your comment that people have had bad encounters with Shilohs that were not ISSR registered, there are also testimonies about bad encounters with Shilohs that did come from the ISSR.
My feeling is that if your "product" is superior to your "competions" than you should be able to stand on your reputation without attacking your "competitor" I also feel that if your "competitor" is providing a sub standard "product", then they will not survive. If the breeders that have left the ISSR where as bad as you appear to beleive I highly doubt they would still be succesfully breeding almost 9 years later. ShenandoahShilohs
Please stop making personal remarks. Wikipedia is a serious, scholarly project, and we do not tolerate incivility. Be nice, it's a requirement. Wikipedia:civility. It would be best if editors would not even address each other. When we must address each other, let's only use screennames. That's for two reason - one is that some editors prefer to remain anonymous, and revealing their personal names is regarded as serious harassment. The other reason is that when we are working here we need to shed our other roles and put on our "Wikipedia editor caps". We should only be here to advance the project, and the project is all that we should be discussing. Thanks to Jareth for find sources for the materal. Whatever we can't verify, or otherwise agree on, we need to remove. If registries verifiably exist then they should be included, even if the breed founder thinks they are heretical. And we should include that POV too, if it's sourceable, per NPOV. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this statement if anything I feel full disclosure should be a requirement. These dogs represent a substantial investment. If we were talking about stocks the law would require full disclosure for obvious reasons. Even editors can have a bias and should be required to fully disclose their affilieations. - Michael Kerr
I understand that there is a significant investment by all sides here, but this is an encyclopedia effort, not a legal arena. Editors can and do have bias, but part of being a responsible editor is learning to write using NPOV regardless. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Proposals/Comments for the Article

I would like to ask why there are discussions regarding this article taking place via private email instead of openly being discussed on this page so all involved can participate/comment. If statements are being made that are not suitable for this talk page, then why are they being said at all? What possible benefit are those comments to this article? SandraSS 13:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Jareth wrote: "...and spent countless hours answering private email."

I believe it is within wiki policy to ask for the advice of the mediator via private email. Whether or not the mediator chooses to acknowledge or respond to private emails is within their own discretion. The possible benefit to the article may be in the approach to writing it, per wikipedia rules.

Shiloh Supporter

Sometimes things have gotten very heated here. During those times, people involved have either requested clarification of Wikipedia policies and guidelines or wisely chosen to vent elsewhere and not be incivil on the talk page. Any and all changes and comments to the article are made here and everyone is being given the chance to discuss. I think however, given that I actually dreamed about Wikipedia policy the other night, I may just have answered one too many questions ;) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, the original article you've begun sounds like you are being as factual as possible. Please continue to pursue this with your research. I'm sure any legitimate Shiloh Shepherd registry will allow you to search their books and use any factual documented information they have about their registry (including history, breeding requirements, genetics, etc...) [Shiloh Admirer]

I believe that most of this information is on each website! I know for a fact that the ISSR has listed every litter ever born within it's registry until 2004? Updates are being prepared right now that should bring us all up to date for the past year. What may not have been listed are the exact numbers of litters born at Shiloh Shepherds (kennel) that had AKC papers prior to that time. However, I am sure that I can provide a reasonable estimate (with proof from past newsletters, etc.) if this is needed. Since the "other" registries are so new here, it shouldn't be hard for them to document the number of litters born within each (with names of Sire/Dam & DOB to prevent duplications) MaShiloh 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why would we need this information in the article? Breeding books are not generally verifiable information, so the number of litters is data that we probably can't put in the article. -Will Beback 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Heath section of our article

Jareth wrote: <<<Any and all changes and comments to the article are made here and everyone is being given the chance to discuss>>>

With this in mind I just became aware that the health section of the Shiloh article was changed yesterday with no chance to discuss.

I have an objection to the edit made. I have spent the last hour visiting many of the other Wiki dog breed articles. What I have found are the breeds that do have a health section strictly address health issues related to the breed. Some of the breeds do make note that people interested in this breed should check the OFA web site for health verifications.

In my search I did not see one instance where the health section linked to any breed clubs web site as ours has been editted to do. To avoid even more controversy pertaining to the Shiloh article I suggest that our health article be written like the majority of other Wiki dog breed articles just listing the health concerns prone to our breed and a link to OFA. This avoids self promoting links to original research containing a bias spin and keeps the article factual and neutral.

If this is not acceptable, please revert the health section to the previous version for discussion and concensus. Thank youShenandoahShilohs

I was unaware there were any disputes with the rest of the article or I would have suggested the changes here first. Since everyone is so focused on disputing the history section, I thought I could work on improving some of the other prose while that was being hammered out. I did mention the change on the talk page above and even started a new article on SIBO to complement the section.
The links are actually references/footnotes as I mentioned in my edit summary. If the consensus is that the genetic task force and littermate xray programs don't merit inclusion, they can be removed. Unfortunately, I'd have to suggest that many of the other dog breed articles are severely lacking -- in fact, there's an entire project devoted to improving those articles. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Leaving the existing written history section of the article intact, while proposing and composing changes on the Talk page, is how we had been approaching the history section of the article. The section's written content remained unedited, for the most part, as we are developing and discussing modifications, with the intent that these modifications will be added upon consensus. This seems to have minimized article edit wars. I suggest you revert these edits to the Health section now, since there has been no discussion nor consensus about them, and that the information previously included prior to the edits, be restored. Following discussion and consensus, they can always be added back in where appropriate. Please advise. Thank you.MilesD. 07:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:OWN or even WP:NOT. It would benefit everyone if both groups would step down from the soapbox. It is not necessary to campaign against every single percieved mention of one another in the article. Please, for the sanity of everyone involved, take the fight somewhere more appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Please calm down, Jareth. You just said: "If the consensus is that the genetic task force and littermate xray programs don't merit inclusion, they can be removed." I simply took you up on your offer and suggested you remove them at this time, rather than leave them in the article while they are being discussed, and restore what was there before. And, I provided reasons why I was suggesting this (because that's what we have been doing and because it would continue to help avert any edit wars). And I asked that you please advise what you thought about this idea. Nothing more was said or intended. I know you have expressed your frustrations with this article and the editors many times lately, but please try to assume some good faith in us. MilesD. 10:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not assuming anything at the moment, I simply suggested a few policies that could be reviewed. I'd be happy to discuss any problems you have with the changes, but we cannot continue to hold the entire article hostage due to the number of people with vested interest who have involved themselves in the discussions. Consensus and discussion is how this works -- there's no reason to start an edit war when you have people actively involved in the talk page and willing to communicate about the article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)