To: Jareth

Ms. Barber said: "They are making claims about 'registering' these dogs ... yet if you actually researched their web sites, they are only using AKC dogs, and mixing them with what they claim to be Shilohs!!  Why??  It's just a money game!  If they can print off a paper that says the pup is a Shiloh, they get more money for that pup!"

Ms. Barber said: "Well, to start with, there are "recognized" registries, like the AKC, CKC, UKC, SV, UK and various other breed club registries recognized under the FCI."

Ms. Barber said: "Then there are the 'self' proclaimed "registries" that will issue a piece of paper to anyone that sends them some cash!  They are a BIG joke in the "official" dog world, and there is a lot of Internet verification regarding all of them!!"

Ms. Barber said: "I am sure that the TSSR, NSBR, SSBA, etc. have convinced themselves that they *are* registries, but I can also assure you that no other legitimate organization, like the UKC .. AKC .. FCI .. etc. would agree with them!! Just because someone says something (and it's not illegal) that does not *make* it so!!" 

Jareth: (see above) Ms. Barber has repeatedly and continuously made personal attacks about other registries and should be banned by you for doing so.  She should be subject to the same rules/restrictions to which the other contributors to this discussion have been held. Wiki has not allowed others to address Ms. Barber's questionable registry/club/breeding practices, so why is she being allowed to continue to do so? 

And, despite being the "first" registry, what independent, unbiased documentation has the ISSR provided to show that they are any "different" or more "recognized" than any other Shiloh registry, when it comes to accreditation by any outside organization. The fact of the matter is, the ISSR is no more "recognized" independently than any of the other Shiloh registries currently in operation.

Also, like the 'self' proclaimed registries Ms. Barber references, the ISSR also issues its own "pieces of paper" based on Ms. Barber's own determination and her registry charge for these "pieces of paper".  What Ms. Barber is claiming about other registries ("Just because someone says something [and it's not illegal] that does not *make* it so!!"), is true of her own, as she has repeatedly throughout this discussion failed to provide unbiased, independent (as you stipulated as a rule for the inclusion of information or contribution) corroboration that her organization is any different.

In addition, the article, as now changed again, with Ms. Barber's numerous links to her own registry's/club's website are again both self-promoting and an attempt to steer readers to her business and to hinder Wikipedia's policy of "neutrality" in its articles.  These links are not unbiased, factual, neutral information.  Readers wishing to pursue more information re: her club/registry have the link at the bottom of the article (along with the other registry/club links) they can access if they want to hear more from her.

At this stage, I think it is obvious that Ms. Barber has no intention of negotiating and compromising, in good faith and mutual respect, a "neutral", factual, independent, unbiased article. I commend you for your patience and efforts, thank you for your assistance and recommend this process move forward to the next step of arbitration. M.Dúfy