Talk:Livestock guardian dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Livestock guardian dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Would this be a better link? http://www1.nina.no/lcie_new/pdf/634994135320630456_IUCN%20CSG%20Occasional%20Papers%20Rigg%20LGDs.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigWhiteFireDog (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the reopened discussion was no consensus at this time. Cavalryman (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Cavalryman (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Mountain dog to this page. The mountain dog article is an unnecessary WP:FORK and none of the cited references mention the term "mountain dog" at all, so this will likely be a simple redirect. Cavalryman (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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.
  • Oppose You merged these. Without notifying the contributors! I created Mountain dog, and was not notified. You deleted inter alia, Bernese Mountain Dog and Leonberger from this article, proving the articles were not redundant or coterminous. There is no indication in the article history that this latest merger proposal was ever discussed or proposed at Mountain dog. Hubris and a deliberate material procedural lapse.
And you say "Mountain dog" is not in the sources for the Bernese Mountain Dog! YGBSM.7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, my apologies for not notifying you personally, both pages were correctly tagged ([1] & [2]), and the appropriate WikiProject (of which you are a member) was notified. Do you have any sources that support this as a type of dog? Not only would all the sources currently used not pass if presented at RSN, but they do not even include the term “Mountain dog”, I can’t even find non-RS for this page. William Harris, notifying you as an existing participant in the discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Due process has been followed, Mountain dog was notified on 13NOV19, and merge was the decision. However, I am always open to a review based on the opinion of a recognised and long-serving contributer to both the dog-related and wolf-related articles. What is the evidence for keeping it as a separate article? William Harristalk 21:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is factually correct. Of course, there were only two persons who !voted and there was NO POSTING at Mountain dog which was the targeted article they were seeking to eliminate. How or why that happens I don't know. I disagree with your conclusion that "Due process has been followed, Mountain dog was notified on 13NOV19" as the history doesn't support it. Of course, it is reopened now, and perhaps we can improve the articles (which are not coextensive or coreferenced or coterminous) so that we can keep them both. In any event, we will see how that all shakes out. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - References do not support "mountain dog" term. –dlthewave ☎
  • Oppose - The Mountain Dog page is supported with RS and we keep pages such as this as a service to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any of these supporting RS? Cavalryman (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose As I mentioned in the section below, mountain dogs are a type of dogs. Not all of them are livestock guardian dogs, nor do I believe all livestock guardian dogs are mountain dogs. Dream Focus 17:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said above, do you have any RS to support your beliefs? Cavalryman (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose A cleaner solution is to just add a link or a brief discussion that there is some overlap in the terms. A full merge is clearly not appropriate, given all the sources. Expecting there to be a scholarly article that "formally distinguishes" between the a mountain dog and a livestock guardian dog is an extreme goalpost to set for the existence of a wikipedia article, and definitely inappropriate.
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.

Livestock guardian dog and Mountain dog[edit]

There was an o'er hasty merger of the latter article into the former. They posted it on one page and left the other off. As the creator of the latter article, I would have thought somebody would have notified me. But merger discussions are subject to abuse and quiet rigging of the process. The merger discussions are NOW ongoing at Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Merger proposal and Talk:Mountain dog#Merger proposal. I wrote the latter article many years ago, and it needs additional sources, particularly ones that use the phrase "mountain dog." The breeds that are listed on these two pages do not completely overlap. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too am very open to reviewing previous decisions, but I will reiterate that the correct notice was placed at Mountain dog (title=Mountain_dog&diff=925903014&oldid=917224123) and it remained there for the duration of the discussion. Further I spent an hour this morning trawling Google for anything related to Mountain dogs, and everything I found was preceded by one the words Appenzeller, Bernese, Entlebucher, Greater Swiss, Swiss (all of which are included in Swiss mountain dog) or Estrela.
A couple of housekeeping points:
  • as both notices point to the above discussion section, I have made this section a sub-section of the former, that way interested parties will be pointed here, and
  • I would like to close the two discussions you have opened at Talk:Mountain dog redirecting interested parties to this discussion, it serves no purpose having parallel discussions occurring simultaneously.
Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
13, your assertion that due process was not followed is rebutted on the facts; please cease that assertion. William Harristalk 00:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone schooled in the law, I can say that reasonable notice via means likely to actually give effective notice is part of "Due process" That being said, and that being indisputably true, I will let it go. And yet it moves.
I will provide additional sources, but am marshalling my assets. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Writing as someone qualified in law, we are required to comply with WP:MERGE in relation to this matter, and no more. William Harristalk 05:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Writing as someone who has been in trouble with the law (of averages,) this article is a list so maybe we could simply rename it and add the list of mountain dogs? Atsme Talk 📧 22:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen, it has been a week since this merger discussion was reopened and no sources have been identified. Are you happy that we close the above discussion and re-merge? Cavalryman (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Cavalryman Thanks. I have not forgotten. I have sources, and will get them in within the next two days. Real life has intruded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, it has been another week since last we discussed this and no sources have been introduced, are you happy to close this and remerge? Cavalryman (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I am sorry for the delay. It is a big project requiring me to pull together many journal articles. Please wait until Tuesday. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources and discussion. I oppose merging. The articles are not coterminous. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen, thank you for taking the time to add some citations and not just making unsubstantiated claims like your ARS comrades. You have certainly added some stuff, but I see nothing reliable that states “mountain dogs” are a type of dog. The lead makes some claims with no particular relevance to mountain dogs, for instance:

“Trainability and boldness traits differ between dog breed clusters based on conventional breed categories and genetic relatedness.” Behaviour traits (boldness and trainability) differ to a significant degree twixt conventional and the genetic breed groups. Based on conventional classifications, rankings of trainability (in order from most trainable to least) are Herding dogs, Hounds, Working dogs, Toy dogs and Non-sporting dogs; Sporting dogs were trainable better than Non-sporting dogs. What is does that have to do with mountain dogs?

Is this quote specifically about a mountain dog type of dog:

“pressures during domestication that has resulted in a considerable diversity in morphology and behaviour. This, together with the many uses the dog is put to in our society, makes the dog an interesting model for studies of animal personality.”

This quote is very definitively NOT about a dog type or grouping of breeds:

Indeed, gene mapping of various breeds , comparing for example canids of Akita, Bernese Mountain Dog, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, and Pekingese, showed much more “linkage disequilibrium” genetic diversity than in humans.

You have four sources for this statement and only one of them mentions a single breed with the words mountain dog in it, but none of what is claimed:

Thus, the mountain dogs including a) Turkish dogs (Akbash and Kangal), b) Central Asian Sheepdog (CAS), c) Northern Caucasian Volkodav (NCV), d) Caucasian Ovtcharka (CO), Portuguese breeds Portuguese Sheepdog (PS), Serra da Estrella Mountain Dog (SEMD), Azores Cattle Dog (ACD) and Dutch breed German Shepherd Dog (GSD) all show “high involvement “Asian” guardian dog lines in [their] genesis.”

Further one of the sources appears to support the case for this merger.

Going through all of the sources after your rewrite:

  • Irion, Schaffer, Famula, Eggleston, Hughes & Pedersen (2003) - mentions the Bernese Mountain Dog breed twice (along with other disparate breeds such as the Pug)
  • Turcsán, Kubinyi & Miklósi (2011) - makes mention of a genetic Mountain cluster of dog European breeds (as opposed to Hunting, Mastiff and Herding clusters), without any further expansion upon the term apart from saying there are some breeds.
  • Xu - www.pawculture.com not RS
  • Cutts - www.thelabradorsite.com not RS
  • dogappy.com not RS and their list contradicts what you have written in the lead and the cited (but not expanded upon) genetic cluster of breeds
  • www.petpremium.com - not RS
  • Guthrie - thehappypuppysite.com not RS and again completely contradicts the lead and the cited genetic study
  • Svartberg & Forkman (2002) - only summary available
  • Sutter, Eberle, Parker, Pullar, Kirkness, Kruglyak & Ostrander (2004) - only speaks about the Bernese Mountain Dog breed
  • Ryabinina - only mentions the Estrella Mountain Dog breed but speaks at length about guardian breeds, seemingly supporting the merge
  • Savolainen, Zhang, Luo, Lundeberg & Leitner - make no mention of mountain dogs whatsoever
  • Marien-De Luca - www.bulldoginformation.com definitely not RS and the site makes no mention of mountain dogs at all
  • The FCI - the unique breed classifications of a specific kennel club is not notable enough for a discrete article
  • Dennler, Lange, Schmied, Kaser-Hotz - could not access the full article but from the summary it appears to be about a single Appenzeller Sennenhund
  • Armenian Gampyr Club of America - not RS and make no mention of these dogs (Armenian Gampyrs) being mountain dogs
  • Kathmann, Jaggy, Busato, Bärtschi & Gaillard (2008) - just a study about Bernese Mountain Dogs
  • Kirberger & Fourie (1998) - just mentions Bernese Mountain Dogs among a host of other discrete breeds
  • Heitmann, Hamann, Brahm, Grussendorf, Rosenhagen & Distl (2005) - just a study about Entlebucher Mountain Dogs
  • Hamilton (2016) - self published work
  • Mittten, Edwards & Rishniw (2008) - could only read the summary but it is a study containing two animals, one of which was a Pyrenean Mountain Dog
  • Lewis (1989) - could only read summary I doubt it speaks about mountain dogs as a type
  • Martin (2011) - could only read summary but just a study about Greater Swiss Mountain Dogs
  • Moustaki (2012) - the usual “Complete owners manual” pumped out about every breed which is about a single discrete breed
  • Kubyn & Grether (2012) - as above

Do you have any WP:RS that discuss a grouping of dogs called “mountain dogs”? Various articles and journals that refer to a particular breed with the words “mountain dog” in the English translation (or mistranslation) of their name do not establish notability for this as a type of dog. Cavalryman (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Further, a reliable source (the first presented here) that supports this merge is David Hancock’s Dogs of the shepherds in which he begins the second sentence of his chapter on livestock guardian dogs with “Some are called shepherd dogs, others mountain dogs and a few dubbed ‘mastiffs’...”[1] (coloured emphasis mine). Cavalryman (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, it has been a week since I asked the above questions of you and I have heard no response, can I presume you have abandoned your objections to the merge? Cavalryman (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
We disagree as to the meaning of these sources. IMO, the articles used as references show that "mountain dog" (and even the breed names) show a commonality. Indeed, they are not the same as "Livestock guardian dog"s. Parsing through them – or debating them with you here – doesn't change those inalterable facts. I've already expressed my opinion, and the article speaks for itself. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, I am struggling to see any good faith editing of yours since your return to this page:
  • you unilaterally reversed a decision that was achieved through consensus
  • you have made utterly false claims (in four forums) and despite being shown proof of how wrong they are you have not only failed to apologise but you have failed to resile from them
  • you finally present evidence and:
  • you insert a number of claims that have nothing to do with the subject matter
  • you misattribute sources
  • you attribute to sources nonexistent meaning
This is supposed to be an article about a type of dog, not any single breed of dog, sources about individual breeds are only notable here if they state that breed belongs to this type.
I have shown you nothing but good faith throughout this process, I should have reverted to the last consensus revision immediately (per BRD) but instead I have given you every opportunity to present you case. You could extend that courtesy and address the serious concerns I have the sources you have introduced. Cavalryman (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hancock, David (2014). Dogs of the shepherds: a review of the pastoral breeds. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-84797-808-0.

Dispute resolution[edit]

Wikipedia policy requires WP:RELIABLE sources to support the WP:NOTABILITY of an article. If these cannot be found, then the article should be either merged or deleted. It would appear that a compromise cannot be reached, therefore I recommend that the WP:Dispute resolution process be initiated regarding this matter. William Harristalk 21:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the question is will User:7&6=thirteen engage with that process? Cavalryman (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The process includes WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which can result in referral to WP:ANI. I suggest that you initiate the less-formal WP:THIRDOPINION in the first instance. (If you both prefer to keep the matter within the Dogs project, you might give User:SMcCandlish a call - he is the best "Wikipedia lawyer" and fair-minded philosopher that I have ever come across here.) William Harristalk 20:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very happy to ask SMcCandlish to review the situation to start with. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm going to avoid getting into the behavior/personality dispute side of this. I've looked into "mountain dog" before, and it's an artificial categorization, and is not even actually a dog type. That is, there is no genetic relationship, nor a breed-functionality one, between all the breed members of this quasi-classification. The only criterion (which is subjective and undefined) is that they come from mountainous, high-altitude places. There's also a simple confusion, that the presence of a string "mountain [dog|hound|etc.]" in a breed or landrace name means the dogs "are" mountain dogs in some kind of absolute classification sense (this is a general semantics fallacy; by direct analogy, if I name my son Rocket McCandlish, he cannot properly be classified as a type of rocket because of his name). I don't think we should have an article at Mountain dog at all, other than to explain that it's an arbitrary, altitude-based label for unrelated and different-purpose breeds of dogs in use by [insert kennel clubs/breed registries here] for [table of breeds here], explain that most of them are livestock dogs and link to that article, then just let it be a perpetually short article. It verges on a WP:DICDEF, but by including information on which organizations use the term (and for what breeds) it can be made encyclopedically defining. If almost all of them are livestock dogs, then a redirect/merger to that article, and a note in there explaining that the alternative term mountain dogs has sometimes included non-livestock-guardian breeds [insert the registry and breed specifics here], will be sufficient. We don't need a stand-alone page if the topic isn't intrinsically of encyclopedic interest on its own merits as a genuinely distinct topic (barring WP:SPLIT considerations, e.g. an over-long main article needing content spun out to sub-articles); all that matters is getting readers to the explanation they need.

On the policy questions (interpretation of sources, etc.), if they don't resolve out soon enough, it would probably be best to isolate them into very specific questions and then RfC them (or noticeboard them, e.g. at WP:NORN or WP:RSN, though I think RfC works better) one at a time, in highest-to-lowest priority order, until the dispute evaporates. I've learned from experience (e.g. in lengthy stalemating with a couple of other editors over the meaning and applicability of landrace, which dragged out for something like 3 years and nearly resulted in sanctions being applied to at least two of us) that just circularly arguing about it until blue in the face will not be productive and is liable to result in lasting hard feelings, and negative impact on one's blood pressure. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Use of sources to establish a "mountain dog" type[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing expired RfC. Complete consensus is no, use of the words "mountain dog" in a breed name does not establish a "mountain dog type". If any editor has issue with my closing this discussion I am happy to list it at WP:ANRFC. Cavalryman (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should sources that discuss dog breeds with the words "mountain dog" in the English translation of their breed name (the most prominent example is Bernese Mountain Dog), be used to establish the existence of a broader "mountain dog type", particularly when those sources make no reference to the existence of such a type? Cavalryman (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Below are two examples of the sources described above which are currently being used at Mountain dog:

Cavalryman (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No - based on the term Bernese mountain dog being referred to in both articles. In Kirberger 1998, the Bernese mountain dogs under study were located in both Switzerland and Scandinavia, alluding to a breed name and not a type of dog.
Whilst on the subject of DNA analysis, Parker 2017 shows the Bernese mountain dog and the Switz mountain dog falling in the same clade as the Leonberger and the Saint Bernard, yet I do not see these listed as "mountain dogs". The article Mountain dog lists the Greater Pyrenees, but does not list its nearest genetic clade brother, the Pharoah hound. It also does not include the real mountain dog - the Tibetan mastiff - and I assume this is because it did not have the word "mountain" in its breed name. William Harristalk 08:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - of course not, this is equivocation. Cavalryman (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • No. It's a completely artificial pseudo-categorization (based as Cavalryman suggests on on the fallacy of equivocation, which that reflects neither a) any genetic relationship between the breeds; c) a consistent dog type breeding purpose (herding, scent-hounding, or whatever), or other connection between them. It's just a coincidence of naming. At very best it could be said to mean "dogs that just happen to be from high-altitude areas", but that's an encyclopedically meaningless intersection. And it is not being applied generally to dogs from high-altitude areas anyway. There is nothing consistent about "mountain dogs" as to physiology, behavior, genetics, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Reading too much into shorthand use of particular breeds.--Eostrix (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This "mountain dog type" seems to be an invention of the editor without any RS support. None of the (reachable) sources listed to the individual races talks about such a group. Beside that for not reachable (subscription) sources to be relevant a text citation should be needed 2003:F5:6F06:7900:D01E:38A0:6E5D:AB52 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC) MPB[reply]
  • No, What's in a name? Well as has already been explained above, in this case not very much. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wolf collar[edit]

Hello User:BigWhiteFireDog, you have reverted my edits that relate to this global dog type. Given that this type of collar may be used in some provinces of Italy, Spain, and Turkey by some shepherds - and the sources in the Wolf collar article are not WP:SECONDARY sources - three countries still does not make wolf collars "common" on the global scale.

As for your edit summary of "I work with these dogs around the world. They are still in wide-spread use and more so now thaw wolves are being reintroduced", you are asking us to accept your "original research" per WP:OR. You will need to provide WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY to support this statement. William Harris (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Show your sources that say they are not in use anywhere else. BigWhiteFireDog (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not linked articles[edit]

Articles that need sources or creation:

Breed Alternate name(s) Country of origin Image
Ashayeri Dog – Iran –
Azerbaijani Shepherd Dog – Azerbaijan –
Buryat-Mongolian Wolfhound – Russia –
Cane di Mannara Cane da pastore siciliano,
Mastino siciliano		 Italy (Sicily)
Ghadrejani dog Central Iranian Shepherd Iran
Mazandrani dog – Iran
Mongolian banhar – Mongolia –
Mucuchies[1] – Venezuela
Shirak Sheepdog – Iran –
Torkuz[2] Sarkangik Uzbekistan –

LoraxJr 19:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Morris (2001), p. 707.
  2. ^ Hancock (2014), p. 32.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Livestock_guardian_dog&oldid=1194971982"