Talk:Dog

Nearly Extinct Gray Wolf

Rework sentence or change extinct to Pleistocene. Gray wolves are not extinct 97.126.89.248 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It once read "an extinct population of gray wolves", which is accurate because these were genetically distinct, however with the passage of time and people making uninformed changes to the lede of the article, this has now become lost. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Though people nearly hunted wolves to extinction in the lower 48 states, northern gray wolves have returned to the Great Lakes, the northern Rockies, California and the Pacific Northwest. But just as the U.S. was making progress for gray wolves, protections were stripped. Credits: Defenders of Wildlife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.254.72 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Dog saliva

Dogs are a significant reservoir and source of zoonotic pathogens and infections from contact with dog saliva can result in serious infections, even necessitating amputations of legs and arms. See The Shocking reason that this man's legs had to be amputated: dog saliva and A Woman Needed Her Hands and Legs Amputated After Contracting Infection from Dog 'Kisses'. The general public is largely ignorant of this serious health issue so this article on dogs should mention that fact. I could add a note to this effect under the 'Health" section (since dogs spread diseases to each other through saliva as well as to humans) but perhaps it merits adding a new section on 'Dog Saliva'. Does anyone have an opinion on that? Nick Nitpicker (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Dewclaw section needs copyediting.

Many grammatical errors. As written: “ A dog's dewclaw is the five digits in the dog's forelimb and hind legs. Dogs' forelimbs' dewclaws are attached by bone and ligament, while the dogs' hind legs' are attached by skin to the limb.”

Probably should read “Dewclaws are a dog’s fifth digits. Dewclaws on the forelimbs are attached by bone and ligament, while the dewclaws on the hind legs are attached only by skin.”

Some technical errors, however. Dewclaws are the first digits - not the fifth - in standard comparative anatomy notation. Even better would be: “Dewclaws are digits, corresponding to thumbs and big toes in humans, (though not functionally so). They are located above the other four toes, on the inside (medial) side of the limb. Dewclaws on the forelimbs are attached by bone and ligament, while the dewclaws on the hind legs are attached only by skin.” 2601:206:8586:7990:ACDA:A385:FF91:3C22 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KayMyrs (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Irruptive Creditor (talk · contribs) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This will probably the longest and most extensive GA-nominee I will have the pleasure of reviewing, so this may take some time. However, I will work to see it through. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I tagged unsourced and poorly sourced parts of the health section. I may be able to source them myself. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was totally uncalled for. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Tagging unsourced content that appears to be sourced due to later citations is uncalled for? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the freaking proof. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph 'Some breeds of dogs are prone to specific genetic ailments such as elbow and hip dysplasia, blindness, deafness, pulmonic stenosis, a cleft palate, and trick knees. Two severe medical conditions significantly affecting dogs are pyometra, affecting unspayed females of all breeds and ages, and gastric dilatation volvulus (bloat), which affects larger breeds or deep-chested dogs. Both of these are acute conditions and can kill rapidly. Dogs are also susceptible to parasites such as fleas, ticks, mites, hookworms, tapeworms, roundworms, and heartworms that can live in their hearts' is sourced to this: [1] The only thing this source can verify is the bolded part. The reference clearly does not support the rest of that content hence why I tagged it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What about the other sentences you tagged? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm meant to spend my time proving that for every tag instead of you just verifying it for yourself if you don't believe me? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Man, it's late here; I'm too tired to verify these sources. I can't check them tomorrow morning either, since I have to head to work early. And I'll be very busy with paperwork by the time I arrive home, so I think it's best you stop talking and start proving. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

But if you wish to fix the "perceived" sourcing issues, you may. I'm not stopping you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh great scare quotes. You're acting like you own this article and that I am required to satisfy you. Wikipedia is collaborative and that means trusting editors unless you have good reason to doubt them. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Trust is earned not given away to anyone. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

In a collaborative project like this, one generally starts with at least some confidence that other participants are acting in good faith. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done with the sourcing issues, and apologies to Traumnovelle for my less than collaborative behavior. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Where does this study: [2] say that certain breeds are predisposed to hip dysplasia? It just states ' CHD is a disease that can affect all breed types, with a higher frequency occurring in purebred canines, and does not discriminate against a specific breed size.' it doesn't support the statement. This study: [3] doesn't mention cleft palate, stenosis, blindness, deafness, nor luxating patellas. The reference is also used for a claim about pyometra. The study just mentions pyometra twice in a graph and GDV isn't mentioned at all. Pyometra is mentioned in this study: [4] but it doesn't establish it as occurring at any age (because it is related to the oestrous cycle). [5] states GDV mainly and commonly affects deep chested and large breeds, not exclusively. [6] this study has nothing to do with over-population. I tagged the ASPCA claim because there needs to be a secondary source

Also Dogtime is not an RS, I have no idea why you added it there was no need for an extra ref there. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you fix them yourself? The sources I added support the claims made in that section. I will not respond further. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

They certainly don't. I've fixed some claims myself and have been looking through text books for one that provides a list/overview of notable/common conditions, although haven't come across such yet. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

While I kindly appreciate your input, @Traumnovelle, you and @Wolverine XI appear to be in some sort of a spat that’d probably best addressed on the main talk page for the Dog article, not its GA review. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I will nonetheless keep a close eye on any relevant new developments arising therefrom such discourse. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Great! Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 02:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Irruptive Creditor: You there buddy? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I've had to work on some stuff IRL, but I am doing well. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Irruptive Creditor: Can you please continue? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

My deepest apologies; I am busy. I have no issue in forfeiting my review and to yield the GA-review opportunity to a more attuned editor. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: G7? Or can this still make it to the October "target articles"? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This GAN will not be deleted, but Rjjiii has already reset this and put it back in the queue. CMD (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI, Irruptive Creditor, and Chipmunkdavis: I didn't think that WP:G7 would apply since there are comments from multiple editors and so incremented the review counter (per WP:GAN/I#N4a).[7] The entry stays in the same position on WP:GAN.[8] Wolverine XI, are you asking about October target articles to attract a reviewer? If so, I don't mind picking this up later this week if nobody else does. It's good to see folks work on the Vital Articles, and dogs are fantastic, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Thanks for your offer. I wouldn't mind an article review from you. And yes, you're right, dogs really are fantastic. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. Source check:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral? It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable? It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   This is the first one I have had time to review thus far. Overall, I see no indication of edit warring.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Checked IP status of all images used.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Roughly, I would say so. Placement is alright and captions are not outlandish. Although, the descriptions of dog molars and of phenotypes and morphological distinctions could be 'dumbed down' somewhat for a lay audience.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Health conditions

Currently the disorders listed are selected by users based on preference/belief rather than based on any authoritative source. I personally don't think elbow dysplasia is very common or notable for example. I do have a tertiary source: although it has so many conditions listed it might be exhaustive/too much. Other options would be one of these studies: [9] [10] [11] although these tend to ignore notable conditions such as gastric dilatation volvulus Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 21:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Starting up the review. Thanks for the patience, Wolverine XI. There are several existing reviews and talk page comments that I'll go through. Traumnovelle, I've watchlisted the talk page and subscribed to the thread at Talk:Dog#Health_conditions; you can also ping me about any issues you find. The organization looks good and is similar to Featured Articles (like Elephant). I'll go through section by section along with checking the older reviews:

Taxonomy (✓)

• Two sources are cited in the Bibliography but don't have any inline citations pointing to them: Coppinger & Schneider (1995); Miklósi (2007).
  • Done
    • @Wolverine XI: I see two inline citations to Miklósi (2007). Both of these need a page number. Also, why have the unlinked citation down in the bibliography if the full citation is given in the body text? I still don't see any inline citations pointing to that source. For Coppinger & Schneider (1995) "Evolution of working dogs", there is one inline citation with the page range (which is great), another inline citation without the page range (why not just use a named reference here?), and then the same citation again in the bibliography without any links pointing to it (why have it down there if the full citation is given inline and nothing points/links to it?).Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• The Taxonomy section is lacking in topic sentences. It takes a linear kind of story-telling approach. The first line is about Linnaeus but should probably be about dogs and their taxonomy.
  • Done
• There are many details about studies, but it's not clear whether dogs, wolves, and dingoes are [a] all one species, [b] separate somehow, or [c] disputed somehow.
  • Dogs diverged from wolves, and dingoes diverged from dogs. They are all connected.
    • Yes, and that could be more explicit in the article. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
      • We already say that "dogs originated from wolves" and "dingoes are considered dog breeds", so I'm a bit confused here. Nevertheless, I changed it a bit.
• Evolution is an empty section. If sources on dogs talk either about the evolution of the wolf, dogs' early divergence from wolves, or the feralization of domestic dogs back to wild dogs, any of that could go here. If nothing should go here, then the section heading should go.
  • Removed
• "Domestication" is also very chronological and it makes it somewhat unclear.
  • Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more.
• Consider glossing "commensal"
  • Not seeing what's wrong with the word
    • The word is fine. Dog will likely have readers unfamiliar with commensalism. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Actioned
• The meaning of "taxed" is unclear.
  • Fixed
• "In 2021, ..." this is towards the end of "Domestication" and the wording plus placement make it sound like this is just one study, but is this study not offering the academic consensus?
  • It is one study that also analyzes other sources...
• It's not clear from this article how domesticated dogs differ from wolves. Consider borrowing some sources from Domestication syndrome. Much of the research into that idea deals with domesticated dogs and other canines (wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc.).
  • Done
• "Their behavioural traits include guarding, herding, hunting,[17] retrieving, and scent detection. Their personality traits include hypersocial behavior, boldness, and aggression." traits that they were bred for? I feel like a sentence is missing right before this.
  • Actioned
• "All healthy dogs, regardless of their size and type, have an identical skeletal structure" One comment from the next section and I'll pause. It's not clear what this means. It just afterwards mentions the tail differences. The last paragraph is all about diverge in skull shape. The previous section ended talking about how variable breeds are. Look at these dudes.
  • That's what the sources say. If we ignore slight differences in skull and tail morphology, their skeletal structure is basically the same.
    • @Wolverine XI: Okay, but the meaning is not clear in the article's text. Other editors at Talk:Dog#skeletal_variation also expressed confusion. Cunliffe (2004, p. 12) talks about skeletons that are "markedly different", but "all have an equal number of bones". The point is about how the vast differences in dogs' body types comes from the size, "length, thickness, quality, and strength" of bones.[12] The other citation, Fogle (2009, pp. 38–39) seems like a stray footnote; I see the "Skeleton" section starting on page 46 but may have the wrong edition of the book. Fogle (2009, p. 46) talks about how the early timing of sexual maturity causes giant breeds to have longer bones and says that "dwarfing [...] reduces the length of the long limb bones and enlarges the joints" for little dudes like dachshunds.[13] I think that Fogle (2009) is in line with what you're saying and what Cunliffe (2004) is saying, but there are better ways to present it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

      Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm pausing there. I'll pick up later.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Responded to all of the points listed above. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

In response to clarification question above, I'll offer an example of what I'm talking about. I'm suggesting that an inverted pyramid approach to organizing some of the information will make things more clear in this section. Some paragraphs have a clear topic sentence like, "Dogs are the most variable mammal on earth, with around 450 globally recognized dog breeds.". Other paragraphs and sections start from either from a chronological beginning or use a study as the topic. I think this makes things less clear. The first line in particular stuck out to me as an odd place to begin. Compare:

Current text beginning with 1758 and Linnaeus

In 1758, the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Linnaeus assigned the genus name Canis (which is the Latin word for "dog") to the domestic dog, the wolf, and the golden jackal in his book, Systema Naturae. He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris and, on the next page, classified the grey wolf as Canis lupus. Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its upturning tail (cauda recurvata in Latin term), which is not found in any other canid.^{(6 October 2024)}

References

Suggested text beginning with taxonomy:

Dogs are domesticated members of the family Canidae. They are classified as a subspecies of Canis lupus, along with wolves and dingoes. Dogs were domesticated from wolves over 14,000 years ago by hunter-gatherers, before the development of agriculture. The dingo and the related New Guinea singing dog resulted from the geographic isolation and feralization of dogs in Oceania over 8,000 years ago.

Dogs, wolves, and dingoes have sometimes been classified as separate species. In 1758, the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Linnaeus assigned the genus name Canis (which is the Latin word for "dog") to the domestic dog, the wolf, and the golden jackal in his book, Systema Naturae. He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris and, on the next page, classified the grey wolf as Canis lupus. Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its upturning tail (cauda recurvata in Latin term), which is not found in any other canid.

References

Hope that helps, and I'll review some of the older comments next to check off issues that have already been resolved, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also suggest that some version of the sentence "This timing indicates that the dog was the first species to be domesticated in the time of hunter-gatherers, which predates agriculture." should be the first sentence of the section it is in. This article will have a broad readership, many of whom will not immediately realize that 14,223 years ago is much earlier than other domesticated animals, none of which where domesticated during the Late Pleistocene ice age. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Marking this section off, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking old reviews (✓)

2004 FA

No outstanding issues. Pretty cool to see how far the article has come.

2004 peer review

All about size. 7,000 words is a normal size. No outstanding issues.

2006 FA

No outstanding issues.

2007 GA

These weren't always transcluded? No outstanding issues.

2008 peer review

Most issues were resolved during the peer review. It mentions sourcing which I'll check later via spot checking.

2009 GA

Most issues are resolved. They note the lead was too short. I'll have to go through the body though to see if anything is missing.

2011 GA

Short review. Issues have been since resolved.

2021 GA

Noting again that the lead is too short, and some statements don't have a reference cited inline.

And that's it. I'll look through the concerns about the "Health" section when I get there. I don't have much feedback on these other than it's interesting to see how far the article has come in a couple of decades. The only outstanding concern is that the lead is short for the size of the article, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I will expand the lead accordingly. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Striking since the lead was expanded, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review (✓)

There are so many dogs! The images are used well. The addition of video and audio are excellent. All images are freely licensed. The following have issues with their copyright tags on commons:

• File:Dog morphological variation.png doesn't match CC license in source
• File:Dog coat variation.png doesn't match CC license in source
• File:Dog anatomy lateral skeleton view.jpg Add parameters to the public domain license template until the red error messages go away. This is in the public domain, but the entry needs to show why.
• File:Cerberus-Blake.jpeg Add the parameter for public domain in the US.

Let me know if you have any issues with license templates, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Completed all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI: double-check the templates, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I'm not picking up anything; what did I miss? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the first two were typos. PLOS is making them available under the CC0 1.0 Universal. It's a public domain dedication with a public-domain-equivalent fallback license. The template for it is {{Cc-zero}}. The other two are fine now; the commons' public domain templates are more complicated than they need to be, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

First spot checks (2d✓)

• ✓: The source on dingo classification is a primary source that doesn't give the context and appropriate weight for WP:NPOV. I'll post some overly specific suggestions below, but it just needs to summarize a reliable secondary source to give the context around the situation before those specific facts in some way.
• ✓: In the Science (2020) source, the section "No detectable evidence for multiple dog origins or extensive gene flow from wild canids" verifies the statements about wolf lineage.
• ✓: The line "Dogs are the most variable mammal on earth, with around 450 globally recognized dog breeds." is a good topic sentence, but it needs to be rewritten to state the facts in an editor's voice. The source has, "dogs [...] are the most variable mammalian species on Earth [...] approximately 450 globally recognized breeds" This was added by retired editor William Harris, not the nominator.
• ✓: Checking some more bits from Harris: The line "In the Victorian era, directed human selection developed the modern dog breeds, which resulted in a vast range of phenotypes." is close to the source but not outright copying (WP:CLOP). Suggest rephrasing it. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences (2017) has, "the Victorian era of directed selection for fancy or novelty resulted in a vast range of dog phenotypes
• ✓: The rest of the paragraph citing the same sources and written by the same author don't have any issues. The sources verify the content and there is no close paraphrasing or copying.
• ✓: Checking more from Harris. The whole section "Touch" needs to be rewritten. It was copied with appropriate attribution to this article by the nominator from dog anatomy, but but was added there in 2015 by Harris. Wikipedia has, "Dogs have specialized whiskers known as vibrissae, sensing organs present above the dog's eyes, below their jaw, and on their muzzle. Vibrissae are more rigid, embedded much more deeply in the skin than other hairs, and have a greater number of receptor cells at their base. They can detect air currents, subtle vibrations, and objects in the dark. They provide an early warning system for objects that might strike the face or eyes, and probably help direct food and objects towards the mouth.[44]". The source, a 2012 blog post has, "specialised whiskers (known as vibrissae). Vibrissae are present above the dog’s eyes, below his jaws, and on his muzzle. [...] Vibrissae are more rigid and embedded much more deeply in the skin than other hairs, and have a greater number of receptor cells at their base. They can detect air currents, subtle vibrations, and objects in the dark. They provide an early warning system for objects that might strike the face or eyes, and probably help direct food and objects towards the mouth."

Current text summarizing the primary source:

In 2019, a workshop hosted by the IUCN/Species Survival Commission's Canid Specialist Group considered the dingo and the New Guinea singing dog to be feral Canis familiaris and therefore did not assess them for the IUCN Red List of threatened species.^{(9 October 2024)}

References

Suggested text giving context from secondary sources:

The classification of dingoes is disputed and a political issue in Australia. Classifying dingoes as wild dogs simplifies reducing or controlling dingo populations that threaten livestock. Treating dingoes as a separate species allows conservation programs to protect the dingo population. Dingo classification affects wildlife management policies, legislation, and societal attitudes. In 2019, a workshop hosted by the IUCN/Species Survival Commission's Canid Specialist Group considered the dingo and the New Guinea singing dog to be feral Canis familiaris. Therefore, it did not assess them for the IUCN Red List of threatened species.

References

I've gone through everything added by Harris. Much of it seems fine? The below quotes should all likely be rephrased, so that we are copying the facts but not the wording:

• ✓: "Unlike other domestic species selected for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[93][94] In 2016, a study found that only 11 fixed genes showed variation between wolves and dogs.[95] These gene variations were unlikely to have been the result of natural evolution and indicate selection on both morphology and behavior during dog domestication. These genes have been shown to affect the catecholamine synthesis pathway, with the majority of the genes affecting the fight-or-flight response[94][96] (i.e., selection for tameness) and emotional processing.[94] Dogs generally show reduced fear and aggression compared with wolves, though some of these genes have been associated with aggression in certain dog breeds."^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "Unlike the majority of domestic species, which were primarily selected for production related traits, dogs were typically selected for their behaviors. [...] only 11 genes with putatively functional substitutions differentiating all dogs and wolves. [...] these regions are unlikely to have been the result of purely neutral evolutionary forces. [...] point towards selection on both morphological and behavioral phenotypes [...] during dog domestication. [...] Strong selection in the initial stages of dog domestication appears to have occurred on multiple genes involved in the fight-or-flight response, particularly in the catecholamine synthesis pathway. [...] selection for tameness [...] emotional processing [...] dogs generally show reduced fear and aggression towards humans compared to wolves. [...] significant allele frequency differences that correlate with levels of aggression related behaviour within or between dog breeds in genes [...]"[14]
• ✓: "Another study showed that after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs faced with an unsolvable version of the same problem look at humans, while socialized wolves do not.[125]"^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not."[15]
• ✓: "However, more like cats and less like other omnivores, dogs can only produce bile acid with taurine, and they cannot produce vitamin D,"^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "However, unlike many other omnivores and more like the cat, the dog conjugates bile acids only with taurine (Haslewood 1964) and cannot make vitamin D, an animal product (Hazewinkel et al., 1987; How et al., 1994; NRC, 2006).[16] from Fascetti's earlier [Nutritional management and disease prevention in healthy dogs and cats https://www.scielo.br/j/rbz/a/nPV4DPcHDDzLMQgDWYmCMXC/?format=pdf&lang=en]
• ✓: "Children in mid-to-late childhood are the largest group bitten by dogs, with a greater risk of injury to the head and neck. They are more likely to need medical treatment and have the highest death-rate."^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "Children are the largest percentage of people bitten by dogs, with the majority in their mid-to-late childhood. The risk of injury to the head and neck is greater in children than in adults, adding to increased severity, necessity for medical treatment and death rates."[17]
• ✓: "pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than non-pet owners"^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "Pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than non-pet owners"[18]

Everything else that he added seems fine and also met WP:V, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Struck all of the above. I'm going to check out the changes in a bit, but all of the copying issues are resolved. Thanks for going through them. I checked the article in WP:EARWIG, and did some manual searches, and don't see other problem areas. All the copying from other articles has attribution. Marking this criteria down as met, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I did some copyediting while checking the recent updates and am done editing the article now. Looking good on 2d, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking cited sources (2a✓)

• For [19], why not use the doi URL?
• What makes this travel business a reliable source for the cited content?
• What makes this dog chiropractor a reliable source for the cited content?
• What makes this dog bowl business a reliable source for the cited content?
• What makes this animal rights group a reliable source for the cited content?
• The first 3 bullets in "range" need citations.

There are some other sources that look odd from the citation but check out. These all look good: the Jewish library source is for Jewish customs,[20] the student essay won was published by the university and won some kind of award,[21], the tertiary sources aren't citing anything controversial, and a couple blog sources are subject matter experts.[22][23][24] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Anatomy and physiology (✓)

The left half of the image shows the estimated difference in a dog's vision.

The bottom-right portion of the image shows the estimated difference in a dog's vision.

Checking out the next section. Issues listed below:

• Issues with "identical" are noted above.
• Not required for GA: If you want to nominate this at FAC there are probably several ways to show the different types of dog skulls. File:Selected skulls.jpg already exists, and commons:Category:Dog skulls in left lateral aspect has side views of many skulls that could be combined into a comparison.
• The sentence beginning with "The fovea centralis" is verified by the source, but the earlier sentences in the paragraph are not.
• Dogs are red-green color blind possible source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717654/
• Dogs and most other mammals have two types of cone cells to our three: https://www.livescience.com/34029-dog-color-vision.html
• A comparison to deuteranopia may be a useful thing to mention and link.
• Dogs also have issues with brightness discrimination and visual acuity. Check out this source: "Based on these studies we can state that the brightness discrimination of dogs is about two times worse than that of humans. [...] According to these measurements dogs' visual acuity is four to eight times worse than that of humans."[25]
• Not required for GA: Check out the images in this section. Feel free to use either one of these to illustrate differences in dog eyesight.
• "being familiar with" is a bit odd. Is there a more direct way to say that?
• "A dog's dewclaw is the five digits": A dewclaw is a digit, maybe the fifth digit was meant here.
• "Some publications thought that dewclaws in wolves": thought is past tense here; was this disproven? The state of the research isn't clear (disproven, proven, disputed, still under study, etc.).

And that's it. This one went pretty smooth. The tail section was especially clean. I had no idea they could wag to one side. "500 dogs would need to have their tail docked to prevent one injury" is a solid way to be clear about the situation without taking a side (good NPOV). I'll pause again, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Please give me until the end of the day to address all concerns. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 02:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No rush; it's a broad topic, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll begin in about 12 hours, which is at around 14:37 (UTC). Right now, I have to prepare for yet another work day :(. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Completed everything. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Health (✓)

• ✓: The editor who raised issues before has addressed them all by editing the article, so I'll mark that off above.
  • Noted
• Under lifespan, it says that it varies among breeds. Are there any general trends for breeds that have longer or shorter lives?
  • Added
    • @Wolverine XI: The study offers two notes on its conclusion that should be summarized in some way for NPOV. It notes that it's including new "designer dog" crossbreeds and that it can't control for the fact that someone willing to pay for a purebred dog is also willing to pay for better care for the dog.
      For criteria 3: Other studies show that fully mongrel dogs live about a year longer on average than dogs with pedigrees. Also, long-nosed dogs have higher life expectancies than flat-faced breeds. For free-ranging dogs, less than 1 in 5 reach sexual maturity, and the median life expectancy for feral dogs is less than half that of dogs living with humans. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
      • @Rjjiii: Completed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Regarding "bitch", we can just say "female dog" instead of having the article say bitch and then including a glossary to explain that it means female dog.
  • Fixed
• ✓: For Cancer in Dogs and Cats, the benefits of spaying are a running theme. This meets NPOV.
  • Noted
• I'd cut this, "Inbreeding depression is considered to be due mainly to the expression of homozygous deleterious recessive mutations.[87] Outcrossing between unrelated individuals, including dogs of different breeds, results in the beneficial masking of deleterious recessive mutations in progeny.[88]". The article explains why inbreeding depression is relevant to dogs. It makes sense to next explain what inbreeding depression is (with a link to that article) and to note what types of dogs have the most issues (designer dogs and Asian pariah dogs probably don't have nearly the same level of inbreeding). The two sentences are trying to explain how inbreeding depression works, but that can just be handled in the broader article. Some of the material added in 2016 is citing a 1987 study. Since 2016, there have been new relevant studies[26] that are cited and summarized at Inbreeding depression.
  • Removed

Noting a few issues above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI: Okay, that's all of the issues that I noted. The four appendices all look fine (Terminology, References, Bibliography, and External links), also. I already checked some of the sources in Ecology and don't see any major issues reading through it. I'll try to review the remaining section (Roles with Humans) soon, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Behavior (✓)

• Consider wiki-linking the first Dog behavior.
• I feel like "is the internally coordinated responses (actions or inactions) of the domestic dog (individuals or groups) to internal and external stimuli.[93] Dogs' minds have" could be replaced with just "has". If there's some nuance there, it's going over my head.
• Gloss colostrum
• "Colostrum peak production was around 3 weeks postpartum" Milk?
• "Dog communication is how dogs convey information to other dogs, understand messages from humans, and translate the information that dogs are transmitting." The opening sentence of dog communication is a more concise explanation, "Dog communication is the transfer of information between dogs, as well as between dogs and humans."^{(30 August 2024)}

That's it for this section, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Completed all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Roles with humans (✓)

• Omit "apparently" or clarify the uncertainty.
• These two sentences should be rephrased to more directly say their meaning: "Within the second half of the 20th century, the first dogs' social status major shift has been "commodification", allowing it to conform to social expectations of personality and behavior.[196] The second has been the broadening of the concepts of family and the home to include dogs-as-dogs within everyday routines and practices.[196]" It's not really clear what "commodification" means in the first sentence. Haven't dogs been raised, bought, and sold prior to 1950?
• This is also unclear, "A vast range of commodity forms aim to transform a pet dog into an ideal companion.[197]"
• "such traditions date back to antiquity" This doesn't meet NPOV presented this way. Simoons FJ (1994) says that dogs were used as a food source by prehistoric humans to an unknown extent (200), and until relatively recently dogs were eaten in East Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the Pacific Islands (203). He says that it was not commmon in Southwest Asia (India), Europe, or Iran (204). He notes religious pressure (Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian) as steadily reducing the consumption of dogs as food (204). An additional concern is that this source is 30 years old and things have changed significantly in the past 15 years with the rise of social media, online activism, and pet ownership. I'm going to list some sources below; I don't think you need all of these sources but hopefully at least one of these helps to give more context to the situation:
  • "Lately, though, Asia has been ditching dog. In January South Korea joined China, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore in banning the dog-meat trade. Cat meat is sometimes banned, too. Regional bans have spread, from Cambodia’s Siem Reap province to India’s Nagaland state. Enforcement is being tightened. In February officials in Hong Kong arrested five Vietnamese caught hawking frozen dog and cat meat. Even in Vietnam, where the trade is still legal, shops are closing."
  • "Thirty million dogs a year are killed across Asia for meat. There are estimated to be more than 91.49 million dogs and cats kept as pets in China. An estimated 10 million dogs a year are killed for China’s dog meat trade. ... Most people in China don’t eat dogs, in fact dog meat is only eaten infrequently by less than 20% of the Chinese population."
  • "Every year in Vietnam, an estimated five million dogs and one million cats are captured, stolen, trafficked and brutally slaughtered for their meat
  • "South Korea announced plans Thursday to compensate famers and others in the country's dwindling dog meat industry before a formal ban goes effect in 2027, a move that is drawing opposition from both farmers and animal rights activists. ... South Korea's parliament passed a landmark bill in January that will ban slaughtering, breeding or selling dog meat for human consumption after a three-year grace period. It will be punishable by 2-3 years in prison."
  • "Despite the perceived benefits of eating dog meat, consumption is decreasing, especially among younger generations. As of 2020, more than half of surveyed respondents supported a ban on consuming dog meat. Just three years prior in 2017, less than 40 percent supported such a ban. ... In addition, the number of Koreans who believe that consuming dog meat reflects poorly on the country is on the rise, up from 36.7 percent in 2017 to 57 percent in 2020."
  • "“The dog-eating stereotype has historically been utilized to belittle Asians and Asian immigrants,” writes Jean Rachel Bahk in the Inlandia literary journal. “I was incessantly pestered about whether the meat in the side dishes I brought for lunch was dog meat” she recalls about her own childhood. ... The study used AI to chart the tone of more than 200,000 speeches since the 1880s, and found the hostile rhetoric in the way Republicans discuss immigration today is very reminiscent of that used against Chinese immigrants in the late 1800s, when they were targeted by the nation's first country-based restrictions on immigration.
• Related to the above, "In Korea" is talking in the present tense about farming dogs for food but ends by saying that eating dogs and raising them to be eaten is going to be illegal.
• Under "Health risks" mention breed-specific legislation. Many countries and municipalities have banned dozens of large dogs.[27][28] It only needs a sentence or two but should be covered.

@Wolverine XI: And that's it. The dogs as food section and the "In Korea" subsection both need to be gone through. Some of the material is out of date and some of it is giving undue weight. The other issues are all pretty minor. I made a few copyedits while reading. Nearly done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Will address these issues promptly at 15:30. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Completed all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI: Bullets 2 & 3 are still reading weird to me. Striking all the completely resolved issues. Health risks looks fine. There are still some issues with dogs as food. It's almost certainly NPOV to have a whole section on Korea when they're outlawing it and at least two other countries eat more dog meat. I am thinking the most clear structure for that section is something like 3 paragraphs. First the history of it, second eating dog meat today (by location), and third a single brief paragraph on Korea and the conflict about it there. I may take a shot revising some of this by the weekend if you don't beat me to it. I'll almost certainly pass it (unless I get like pancaked by drunk dump truck driver). I wanted to give you early notice before passing in case you want to do a DYK for it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Better now? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: OK, am I missing something with the dog meat section? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI I just haven't fully gone through it yet. The other two were much easier to check. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean, "Although Indians residing in the Americas regularly fed off dogs, the majority of those living in their homeland rarely fed on such meat." I'm reading through the source, but on Google Books which leaves out several pages. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The source says it was common among Indians in the Americas on page 200 but not in the Indian subcontinent on page 203 or 204. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I see you've started a little something on your sandbox; how is it coming along? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You have caught me! Yes, I am and will be done by the weekend. Feel free to double-check any of my work. The "Indians" in the source above are Native Americans, not Indians from India. It's common in twentieth-century sources to still use that terminology, and if you go back to the eighteenth century you can find some really odd stuff (like Moundbuilders). For pre-Columbian dogs, some of the best sources are going to be in Spanish. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! Can't wait to see the end result. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI: This weekend I'll look things over for minor issues and pass the article. Take a look at the section I updated and let me know if you have any objections or questions. Feel free to polish anything you notice as well. Before I wrap up the review did you want feedback on any aspects of the article? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Thanks for updating that section; it looks much better and more comprehensive. Thanks also for the time and effort you invested in making sure everything was up to par. That said, I don't believe any part of this review was overlooked. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI: I looked it over and only noticed a few issues in the lead. Since I could address them with small tweaks or pulling up body text, I did. I also set the formatting to CS1 for the couple of CS2 citation templates. Take a last look to fix anything, and I'll pass it soon. I don't see any issues that fall below the GA criteria remaining. Thanks for the patience and for taking the time to work on an article like this (broad scope, highly viewed, rated vital). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Made a slight edit to the article, and that should be it. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

chondrodysplasia (dwarfism) and dachshund and corgi

This claim is dubious and almost certainly untrue. Chondrodysplasia causes more than just shortened legs and the health effects would be disadvantageous to any working breed. Historical depictions of dachshunds including a taxidermied specimen show a lack of the trait. It is certainly a modern trait bred for appearance and show. I am unaware of what the source states but I am looking for one which dates when the condition first started being bred for. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: The cited source seems reliable.[29] It says:

Selective breeding has dwarfed the size of the Dachshund’s skeleton, reducing the limb bones and enlarging the joints. [...] Dwarfing, on the other hand, retains all of the skeleton’s normal anatomical relationships, but reduces the lengths of the long limb bones and enlarges the joints. [...] Both dwarfism and miniaturization are natural occurences, which have been accentuated through our intervention in dog breeding. (pp. 38-39, cited range) [...] For the last 100 years they [Dachshunds] have been bred as “earth dogs,” the standard size being willing and able to follow badgers and foxes to earth, with the miniature version doing the same with rabbits. (p. 184, "Dachshunds") [...] Watch your ankles when you are near a Cardigan Welsh Corgi. This robust working dog is an instinctive “heeler,” which originally drove livestock by nipping at its heels; it was built low enough to the ground to avoid flailing hooves. (p. 229, "Cardigan Welsh Corgi")

Here are some other sources on Dachshunds:

• "This means that for the longest time, domestic dogs had the potential for dwarfism, which was independently maintained and nurtured by breeders all over the world. Originally, they were shaped for specific jobs like flushing out burrowing animals. Later on, breeders would have kept imposing strong evolutionary pressure on their animals to meet the conditions set by dog-breeding associations."[30]
• "The Dachshund’s long body, short legs and flexible spine make it ideal for wriggling into tight spaces to follow badgers and other burrowing, according to the author of “Dachshunds for Dummies.” The breed’s short legs give it other advantages, such as the ability to move briskly through thick brush, to dig holes and to catch and follow a scent due to its closeness to the ground."[31]
• "The Dachshund Club of America claims that the dachshund dog breed was born in Germany when foresters in the 18th or 19th century were seeking out a dog breed that could fearlessly fight badgers. The dachshund has the perfect conformation for the task. His short paddle-shaped legs could effectively dig while his long, low-to-the ground body could easily access the burrows. The rest is offered by a dachshund’s courageous, temperament, loud bark (so hunters could easily locate him) and well-developed senses, which make him particularly suitable for the task. There is also belief that this breed’s long, sturdy tail must have worked as a “handle” to pull these fellows out of the burrow."[32]
• This explanation goes back at least to Will Judy's 1925 The Dog Encyclopedia.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that source doesn't support the claim: 'dwarfism has been selectively used for some types where short legs are advantageous'. Being bred smaller is different to being bred for dwarfism. Dwarfism is not advantageous for a hunting breed and I've found mention in a study that working Dachshunds have lower rates of IVDD, a disease that is often caused by chondrodysplasia and for which Dachshunds make up the plurality of cases. I wouldn't put any weight into what the author of 'Dachshunds for Dummies' writes and fancier clubs should be disregarded, they promote all manner of ahistoric rubbish to promote their breeds.

'Funquist and Henricson state that wire-haired dachshunds are less often affected because they are used in hunting.'

Although I'm unable to find a veterinary source that directly contradicts the idea it can quite easily be proven false by just looking at historical depictions of dachshunds which show dogs that are quite clearly not chondrodysplastic like the modern breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Traumnovelle (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I still don't believe the issue is addressed. Working dogs were bred to have shorter legs but they certainly weren't bred to have dwarfism, same for brachycephaly, it is a modern trait bred for appearance and style. It impairs function so the idea it was introduced to improve function is dubious. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: What time period are you thinking this change occurred where dachshunds began to be bred for dwarfism (rather than just a small size)? If I come across sources on the general topic, I'll try to post back here. "advantageous" really was a step beyond the cited the source, but I think the material in the article is now summarizing what the cited source says. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually nevermind the issue is addressed, my apologies. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all good, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

References

75 restricted breeds in the US is dubious

I found this claim dubious, the AKC recognises slightly more than 200 breeds so this would represent a large amount of breeds. I looked at the source, which cites the AKC, who cite this: [33] this is not a reliable source and I can spot an obvious error quite quickly. The Alsatian Shepherd is listed a banned breed. This is not a breed, the Alsatian Shepherd is an older name for the German Shepherd Dog which is later listed. Another example is the blue heeler, an alternate name for the Australian Cattle Dog. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced with an MDPI source. MDPI is okay here for basic and easily verifiable facts. I chose not to focus on specifics as that would lead to a focus on whatever country/area was chosen. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle That source is fine. I think it's valuable to avoid counting the breeds because it's a number that is subject to change, debatable, and easy to misinterpret. In the sense that the laws specified 75 breeds to ban, that sounds likely (e.g. banning every possible way to name any type of a bulldog as a list of "breeds"). If a source draws any kind of broad strokes on what types of breeds (my assumption is size and association with dogfighting), I think that may be useful. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Various types of dogs.

• ... that dogs (examples pictured) were domesticated from wolves over 14,000 years ago by hunter-gatherers, before the development of agriculture? Source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2010083118 https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00432-7
  • ALT1: ... that humans have consumed dog (example pictured) meat for at least 14,000 years? Source: https://books.google.co.za/books?id=JwGZTQunH00C&pg=PA208&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Wolverine X-eye (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 09:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC).

• Comments: ALT1 is going to make a lot of people upset. I should know, as I'm from South Korea, where dog meat is still eaten. BorgQueen (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

All the better for views if you ask me, but technically that hook would be about dog meat and thus it would fail WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE, so with regret I've struck it. ALT0 is available for review; might have a rummage for hooks myself. (Also, that image of 'a female dog nursing' is adorable.)--Launchballer 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Article received a GA review seven days before DYK nom, so it's new enough. It's definitely long enough, and I'm going to trust that the GA process addressed any potential concerns about sourcing. The hook is interesting, and the image is freely-licensed. QPQ is not required. Personally I think it would be nice to have an image comparing a dog to a wolf since the hook makes mention of both, but that's just my personal opinion. Overall, it seems good to go! Di (they-them) (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Now that I mention it, might I suggest this alt image? commons:File:Comparison of a wolf and a pug.png. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  That image is low-quality IMO, so no, not that one. I would instead prefer a husky since it looks somewhat similar to a wolf. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm doing a tick to make clear that this comment is not an objection, but just excerpts from the two sources verifying the hook fact. The earlier article says, "The researchers determined that dogs were probably domesticated from now-extinct wolves between 11,000 and 16,000 years ago — before humans began farming around 10,000 years ago."[34] and the more recent article pushes this timeline back further,[35] "Dogs were the first domesticated species and the only animal known to enter into a domestic relationship with people during the Pleistocene [...] dogs were domesticated in Siberia by 23,000 years ago, possibly while both people and wolves were isolated during the harsh climate of the Last Glacial Maximum. Dogs then accompanied the first people into the Americas and traveled with them as humans rapidly dispersed into the continent beginning 15,000 years ago [...] The earliest generally accepted dog dates to 15 ka (from the site of Bonn-Oberkassel, discussed below). However, claims for the existence of domestic dogs as early as 40 ka (22–28) have been made on the basis of morphological (22, 24–27), isotopic (22, 29), genetic (22, 28, 30), and contextual assessments (24, 31) of ancient canid remains. Yet, none of these potential domestication markers is fail-safe, owing to the fact that wolves and early domesticated dogs can be difficult to distinguish from each other." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"Female dog" or "bitch"?

Traumnovelle, why change "female dog" to "bitch"?[36] Does that not go against MOS:JARGON, "Some topics are necessarily technical: however, editors should seek to write articles accessible to the greatest possible number of readers. Minimize the use of jargon? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Bitch is not a jargon term, it is a term in common parlance. I don't see how it can qualify as jargon but sobriquet doesn't. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I work in the veterinary field, and "Bitch" is the correct veterinary term for a female dog. It is not derogatory when used in this context. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not consider "bitch" jargon any more than, for example, "bull" or "cow", or "stallion" or "mare". It is not as common only because of its secondary vulgar meaning - much like "ass" often is avoided even when speaking of that animal. That said, I have no strong opinion on whether to use "bitch" or "female dog" throughout the article; the two are interchangeable. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The specific terminology of the veterinary field is jargon, by the very definition of the term. It would be highly unusual for someone outside the veterinary field to refer to a female dog as a bitch, unless making a joke or trying to get a rise out of someone. 68.71.31.171 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not jargon. The term is not just used in the veterinary field: it is used in everyday vernacular by many English-speaking groups outside the US (to refer to the animal), not to mention breeders, kennels, dog shows, conservation departments, farmers, and many other specialized groups. It cannot be "jargon" when used throughout the populace. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone would try to argue that it is jargon: I've never seen anyone try to claim a term referring to the male or female of any species is jargon, except here. So let's be honest: it's likely this is a straw man argument, at least for some, who wish to remove the term because of its alternative derogatory meaning. And, I see no need to use it when it's a synonym for "female dog". But there's no compelling reason to avoid it either. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, the specific terminology of "specialized groups" is, by definition, jargon. 68.71.31.171 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, the specific terminology of "everyday vernacular" is, by definition, not jargon. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If you read the comment that I was responding to, you will see that the word was "everyday vernacular" used by "specialized groups," not the public. 142.115.60.108 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I WROTE that comment. Read it again. You misunderstood it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Is ewe or mare jargon? I would argue most of these terms are less commonly recognised (esp. in an urban population) but are still used in the relevant Wikipedia article instead of the queer 'females'. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Just because ignorant people use a word as a derogatory term does not negate that fact that the word is correct when used in the proper context. The word "cock" has profane usage, but that does not change the fact that it means a male chicken. It also has a different, non-profane meaning in reference to firearms. One could go on with terms like "ass", "pussy" and "Jesus Christ" which have both profane and non-profane usage. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Insulting members of the public by calling them "ignorant people" doesn't help your case. Wikipedia is written for the public. That's why we don't use specialized language, such as the language you use as a member of the veterinary profession. Stop looking down your nose at those of us who don't have veterinary training. 68.71.31.171 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you are concerned about the "public" when your comments are US-centric. The term is much more commonly used outside of the US, to refer to the female animal. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you would jump to the conclusion that my comments are US-centric. I am not American, none of my ancestors are American, and I have never lived in the United States. Regardless, the rule here is that we use a form of English understandable throughout the English speaking world, even in the United States. 142.115.60.108 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to note Horse and Sheep naturally introduce the respective terms and then use them. It would be easy to include into the lead as either terminology or naturally introduced. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Mistaken interpretation of path to domesticity

The sentence 'the dog is a domestic animal that likely travelled a commensal pathway into domestication (i.e. dogs neither benefited nor got harmed)' does not interpret the referenced sources correctly. A commensal relationship is on in which one animal derives benefit and the other derives neither benefit nor harm. The referenced source says, "free-ranging wolves attracted to the refuse generated by human camps most likely followed a commensal pathway to domestication that was neither deliberate nor directed." In this description, the proto-dogs did benefit by being able to eat human refuse, while humans in this initial phase of the relationship were neither benefitted nor harmed. The sentence would be more accurate if it said somethin like, 'the dog is a domestic animal that likely travelled a commensal pathway into domestication (i.e. dogs benefited from eating the refuse of human camps while humans neither benefitted nor got harmed)' 2600:1702:4E34:4F8F:F10F:D998:C340:997B (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've done a slightly reworded version of your suggestion. Thanks for catching that. For less-watched pages, you can also used the template listed at Wikipedia:Edit requests to propose suggestions to locked articles, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

Here’s a submission that follows Wikipedia’s edit request guidelines:

---

• • Edit Request**
• Section:* "Senses" under "Anatomy and Physiology"

Suggested Text Addition: Add the following paragraph after the sentence: "This sense of smell is the most prominent sense of the species; it detects chemical changes in the environment, allowing dogs to pinpoint the location of mating partners, potential stressors, resources, etc."

> "In addition to detecting environmental cues, a dog's highly developed olfactory system can recognize specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with various human diseases. This ability allows trained dogs to identify conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and even infectious diseases like COVID-19, making them valuable as non-invasive diagnostic aids. Studies have shown that dogs’ disease-detection capabilities often match or exceed the sensitivity of some electronic diagnostic methods."

Source: 1. Jendrny et al. (2021). "Canine olfactory detection and its relevance to medical detection." *BMC Infectious Diseases*, 21:838. DOI: [10.1186/s12879-021-06523-8](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06523-8). This study reviews dogs' ability to detect specific diseases through VOCs and discusses diagnostic accuracy that is sometimes greater than electronic methods.

This addition highlights the functional and diagnostic significance of the canine olfactory system, enhancing the existing information in the "Senses" section. Aliceev (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - 1, we can't accept LLM (that is, AI) generated text, and 2, the idea that dogs can detect COVID is a controversial medical claim and would require very strong sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Should "Canis lupus" come first?

The very beginning of the intro says "The dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is...." From what I can tell, both from this article's Taxonomy section and from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; itis.gov), Canis lupus familiaris is the accepted classification. Some experts disagree, preferring Canis familiaris, but apparently the accepted one is Canis lupus familiaris. Shouldn't the latter come first at the beginning of the intro? DKMell (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ITIS actually lists both forms. I can see that by looking at the taxonbar at the bottom of the page. From there I can also see that a majority of the more well respected taxa databases seem to prefer C. familiaris to C. l. familiaris. So no, I can't support this suggestion. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)