I think Canis makes a good point on the first bullet of the original post in this thread.  We can change the language to indicate that the data was collected in New South Wales, not world-wide, although I don't think that this will change the meaning of the language significantly.  NSW seems to be one of the primary places where the breed is established, so a slight change to current wording should suffice.  The second and third bullets are less clear.  Why does it matter that the data is a few years old, especially since the dates of the studies are clearly listed in the article?  Also, if Canis can support claims that RS references in the article contain mistakes, he/she should post other RS references explaining these errors.  Finally, if Canis believes that I have edited incorrectly, I would ask that he/she posts diffs showing my bad behavior and explaining exactly what I have done wrong.  I have no bias in this matter, unlike editors heavily involved in dog breeding and related fields, and everything I am doing on this I article is being done to preserve the article's integrity and to improve Wikipedia.  Thanks.