Talk:Boxer (dog breed)/Archive 1

message: Err, I don't know much about breeding history or the like, but I noticed that according to the history section the breed is barely older than the 20th Century, but under temperament, the article talks about the reputation of the Boxer in "olden times."  I'm changing it for two reasons.  First, it seems that the breed is quite new, and second, the language under temperament is not especially encyclopedic, and even if the term "boxer" was used to describe relatives of the modern Boxer prior to the formalization of the breed, that needs to be noted somewhere or it's gonna make the article look inconsistent.  If I'm wrong and the boxer's reputation does substantially precede its formal establishment as a breed, consider adding that language back in with an explanation, as that would be of some use to a reader curious about the history of the breed.
Zabieru 05:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I have two of them. My understanding is that the breed didn't exist in any form before maybe the 1870's (???) at the earliest, so "olden times" would hardly apply. Fan1967 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breed History 

message: This article section is being filled with spam from many sources:
* www.steynmere.com/GENETICS.html
* www.cinemaboxers.com 
* groups.msn.com/showboxers
* www.dogsindepth.com/working_dog_breeds/boxer.html
* www.canismajor.com/dog/boxer.html
* www.boxertalk.org/
And www.dog-toy.co.uk/dog-information/boxer-dog.shtml, which was removed.
I think all those links to be spam because they weren´t used as sources for the article (those known sources are already cited in the references section). I think that listing the Boxers clubs around the world affiliated to the FCI and official confederations to be fine, but linking to commercial sites with not much in depth information to be only SPAM. I think it would be best to remove this section entirely because it would be too subjective to tell which entry is or not SPAM. Any opinions? Loudenvier 03:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam in ''Directories and Informational Pages'' 

message: We could try to get a consensus on this matter before start deleting all the boxers clubs scanctioned by the FCI or AKC. Loudenvier 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official FCI Boxers Clubs are not spam  

message: I think it´s time to have a section for white boxers. There seems to be so much nonsense about them around that only wikipedia could clarify :-). Is someone up to the task of collection information about them from reputable sources? I´m tired of hearing about health problems only to justify a commercial procedure to eliminate the costs attached to breed a white puppy which would only be sold as a pet-level dog Loudenvier 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and as somebody who has done lots of research on this subject since getting our first (fawn) boxer and then our deaf white boxer I can offer what I have by way of scientific evidence. Which, I have to add, is non-existant on the health problems issue. I am busy setting up a website and collecting information for that too, so once I'm done I'd be happy to share. Vevd 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wite Boxer 

message: The information on the boxer's temperament seems a bit biased and could be cleaned up by someone who knows a lot about boxers, just to keep its language neutral. magicOgre 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It´s not POV. The entire section is closed based on the book it refers to. It cites sources. Boxers are really like that. They have to be because the standard demands that temperament. If a dog does not display such personality traits then it´s a bad breed dog and should not be allowed to reproduce. By the way, you put a POV tag on an article that cites many sources and avoids considerably subjective matters, why? You should have put the tag POV-section instead. I will remove the tag because it seems unjustified. Loudenvier 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I´m doing a few changes and adding a few things to the section of your complaint, because if you felt that way by reading it than many other people would feel it too! But keep in mind that avoiding POV is not the same as avoiding your point of view. To avoid POV you should express ALL or MOST points of view about a subject. When exposing a point of view sometimes the language cannot be entirely neutral (I can´t think of a neutral way to express the temperament of an animal, it´s mainly composed of adjectives!!!).  Loudenvier 19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, I didn´t saw your talk here, and went on and provided my thoughts on the matter on a proper section of the talk page. I think it´s in no way POV, and I also think it´s sound as exactly the opposite of what he feared. It sounds more POV towards uncropped instead of cropped ears. But, in the end, it seems more suited to call uncropped ears natural. It simply sounds more... natural to me. Loudenvier 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My problem with it was that the article pointed out when ears were uncropped, but not when they were cropped; the POV there is that cropped is "normal" and "right" for boxers.  Pointing it out in the first image is sensible and illustrative, though. Percy Snoodle 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: I´ve discovered on http://www.americanboxerclub.org/boxer_history.html the lineage of the branch that resulted in Piccolo von Argentor. I´ll have to update the graph to reflect this, but I haven´t the time to do this yet. Did you think it´s best for the article to update the text only after updating the graph? Or some transient inconsistency is bearable? To summarize his lineage is:
* Alt's Flora II (not on graph) is sister to Alt´s Schecken .
* Alt´s Flora II mated with her father Lechner´s Box to produce Maier´s Lord (the first notable boxer sire)
* Maier´s Boxer was mated with Maier´s Flora of unknown parentage which produced Piccolo von Angertor
Regards Loudenvier 20:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piccolo von Angertor lineage 

message: I´ve already pointed out about spamming in the External Links section and I did remove it before. User Mwanner backed me up and wrote the following remark on the section:
:Please do NOT add External links, unless they meet the standards of WP:EL. In general, valuable information from external sources should be added to the article (re-written). External links must not be commercial in nature, should not be blogs or forums, and should only be added if they provide useful information that is not appropriate to add to the article.
We all know that the links are being written with good faith by the editors. I´ve already read through some of them, and there is indeed valuable information on them. The fact is that it doesn´t matter, if the linked page does not conform to WP:EL then it should be deleted. In other words, if the external linked page was not used as source for the article, then it should not be listed. Please, read WP:EL to understand better this policy. My suggestion for the mantainers of those valuable sites is the following: Be SELFISH! Enforce that your site will be linked by adding value to the article referencing sources on your site. For example, the http://www.cinemaboxers.com have great information about cropping of the ears that should be added. Adding this to the article will ensure the site will be properly referenced. Regards Loudenvier 12:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links section 

message: I'm new to Wiki and didn't want to mess up the links/citations, but I would suggest changing the Health section to the following:
Boxers are prone to develop cancers, heart conditions such as Aortic Stenosis and Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy (the so-called "Boxer Cardiomyopathy"), hypothyroidism, hip dysplasia, and degenerative myelopathy; other conditions that may be seen are torsion (bloat), intestinal problems, and allergies (although these last two may be related to diet rather than breed). [Citation for this would be http://www.americanboxerclub.org/healthtbc.html and http://www.americanboxerclub.org/genetic_diseases.html]  Responsible breeders test their breeding stock before breeding and in some cases throughout the life of the dog. [Recommended health screening link: http://www.americanboxerclub.org/health-screening.html]  
Also, perhaps separating out the section on white Boxers is appropriate, as there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding these dogs.
White boxers are neither albino nor rare, and make up approximately 20-25% of the breed. Genetically, these dogs are fawn or brindle, with excessive white markings overlying the base coat color.  These excessive markings mean the white Boxer is more prone to certain health conditions than their colored counterparts.  Like fair-skinned humans, white Boxers have a higher risk of sunburn and associated skin cancers than colored Boxers.  They are also more prone to congential deafness caused by lack of pigmentation in the inner ear.  It is estimated that 18% of white Boxers are deaf in one or both ears, [Citation: http://www.americanboxerclub.org/white-deafness.html] though shelters and rescue organizations see about double this number.  In the past, breeders often euthanized white puppies at birth; today, most breeders place white puppies in pet homes with spay/neuter agreements. White Boxers are disqualified from conformation showing by the breed standard, and are prohibited from breeding by every national Boxer club in the world.  They can compete in non-conformation events such as obedience and agility, and Boxers of all colors do well as service and therapy dogs.
Newcastle 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your wording is good, but I also feel that it´s lacking information on white boxers suspicious "studies", which is present in the current article (those studies are claimed to be biased because breeders want to justify the euthanization of white-boxers). But, man! THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! Why don´t you change the article yourself? This way we could use the diff tool to see which modifications you did, and change or agree with you! It´s an evolving colaborative work, unless you´re changing drastically the article you don´t need to ask for permission.. Be bold! Change it right away! In the end the article only gets better. But be careful not to cite verbatin from other sites. You cannot breach copyright law! Just a reminder! Loudenvier 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, white boxers do not make up 20-25% of the breed. They make up 20-25% of flashy-to-flashy breedings. Yes, in some areas of the world where flash is desirable and they only do flashy-to-flashy breedings, it will be 20-25% white (remember that genetics is theoretical and sometimes more or fewer white puppies are produced each litter). Yet, in areas of the world where flash isn't desirable and only plain-plain breedings take place there will be nearly no white puppies. Another thing to bear in mind is that rescues and shelters mostly only see deaf white boxers because those are the ones that most often end up in rescue due to people's ignorance on canine deafness - they don't see all the hearing white boxers that are happily homed with families. After researching white boxers for over a year now, apart from deafness and sunburn (neither of which are problems, really. Anyone who's ever lived with a congenitally deaf boxer can tell you that they are just normal boxers.. and sunburn can be easily avoided by using sunscreen) I have found no scientific evidence of there being any other "health issues". I can say from experience that what matters is the pre-breeding health tests to ensure high quality breeding stock. A white puppy from health-tested parents is no more susceptible to "health issues" (excluding deafness and sunburn, of course) than their brindle or fawn littermates. Vevd 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article placed a Citation needed warning for all alledged deafness and "cientifical" claims about white boxers. I really disagree with those claims, but everywhere on the web and papers does permeate this notion as if it was right. Since it´s wikipedia we could not only write what we think, we should instead cite what other (reliable) sources stated. Other thing: Where in the world the flashy is not desireable? Please, correct my ignorance of this! And remember that the flashy is rescessive, so a completely plain boxer could (and most probably) have the flashy gene, simply because of the ancestors of the breeding, that were themselves almost completely white (see the genealogy section)). Genetics are probabilistic, of course, that´s why we said that 20%-25% of boxers are white (which means a boxer with more than 1/4 of white markings). (oh, apologize for the clumsy english, I´ve wrote this reply in a hurry!) Loudenvier 14:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the flashy gene is recessive. And no, according to genetics, two plain boxers have no possibility of producing flashy ones (tho i suspect you're thinking of brindle/fawn genetics?). The gene for solid colour is S. It is dominant (written in uppercase). When a boxer has two solid colour genes, they are SS which means they don't carry the w gene at all. w is the extreme white spotting (or extreme piebald) gene, which as you said is recessive. A flashy boxer has one of each genes, so they're Sw. And a white boxer is ww. I understand what you meant, tho, when you said that two plain dogs can produce a white puppy because of the recessive w gene. While this is incorrect, and a boxer is either flashy or not (flashy being able to produce white puppies and plain not being able to), sometimes it is very dificult to tell if a boxer is plain or flashy. Genetically they either are or aren't, but the w gene manifests itself in various ways and it can be extremely difficult to tell. So it is, in fact, human error that would cause you to think this :) (maybe I've oversimplified this, and I'm not making myself clear?) And some breeders here (South Africa) prefer the look of the plain Boxer, so don't breed flashy-to-flashy often. In our Boxer federation here, plain and flashy are treated equally and you can still easily have a champion who's plain, that way the breeders know they can take the most structurally correct pup from a litter - regardles of flash. Vevd 12:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You´ve said the same thing as I´ve said: I was not refering to "Plain" from a genetical view. I was talking "phenotypically". It´s pretty hard, or impossible, to look at a "plain" boxer and tell it is SS not Sw. I didn´t know that in South Africa you did prefer plain boxers. I think all boxers are beutiful, and it´s really hard for me to say what I dislike on them but I´m a kind of traditionalist, I think, to me, the "real boxer" is fawn-flashy. Look at the Von Dom boxers, they all had some kind of flashy. The ancestors were almost all flashy or white. To me, prefering the plain boxer and breeding towards this goal is somewhat a form of denial of the history of the breed and, in my opinion again, the boxer trademark :-). I´ve found some nice pictures from the acestors of the breed, I will be uploading them to the article. But you´ve pointed something important: While, aproximately 20-25% of boxers are white, this information can be misleading and is only an oversimplification of the matters, because people would think that a SS to SS (plain to plain) breeding would produce 20-25% of whites. To complicate matters, the marking and coating genes are not related, and also there is the possibility that white x white could lead to brindle boxers (the boxers are white phenotipically but not genotipically []). It´s time for an article update on genetics. Loudenvier 14:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaah! So we are on the same page, then :) Sorry, I misunderstood you. It would be unfair to generalise and say that most breeders here prefer plain. A lot of breeders here do like flashy boxers, but because there is not much preference in the showring, they dont have to breed specifically for flash, resulting in fewer white puppies (although most breeders here still cull them. The reason why I've done all this research is because I'm trying to create awareness of them) because they can use the structurally most correct pup from a litter regardless of whether or  not they're flashy. I personally prefer them with flash (I have one flashy fawn and one ultra-flashy (white :P ) brindle) but I have seen lots of plain dogs in the showring. I look forward to seeing your pictures! On another note, white x white could very well lead to a brindle boxer.. but if we're going in that direction (or even the plain x white to give a theoretical 100% flashy boxers direction) we hit an ethical brick wall, due to the fact that while white boxers are completely normal healthwise (except the sunburn and deafness) lack of pigment on the outside can mean a lack of pigment in their tissues inside them too.. and would it really be beneficial to the breed to introduce something like that into the gene pool when no scientific studies have been done on it and we don't know where it'll lead 5 generations down? And bring on the updated genetics article! Wow, this ended up long. Vevd 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Issues 

message: Well, I think it´s nonsense to pay attention to which term is used: uncropped or natural ears. I´m aggressively against cropping of the ears (but I´m in favor of cropping of the tail because it´s a very easy, fast and clean procedure, and not painful at all...). It sounds to me just like trying to be over politically correct, which is something that only foster discrimination (soon we will have to write "he or she" whenever a pronoum is needed only not to provoke the hate of feminists...). It´s not POV. It´s claim is pure nonsense. BUT, I really think it sounds more NATURAL to call uncropped ears "natural". Although driven by the wrong motivation the change to natural ears seems more natural. :-) Loudenvier 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cropped, uncropped and natural ears 

message: I know, I know it's a very good thing to have your boxer puppy picture on wikipedia, but there are currently too many pictures on the article, and its starting to diminish the quality of the article. Many of those pictures does not present new information (is redundant) and also does not (in some cases) represents the boxer standard, or are themselves of low quality. The picture on the breed infobox for example is not what I would call the best picture to represent the boxer (both dogs does not look strong as the breed demands, looking a litle fragile and are reverse brindle which does not represent the majority of the breed). See the Great Dane and compare the breed infobox picture. In that article it was from a show-grade dog (actually a marvelous specimen!!!). It would not be too difficult finding or making a picture in a high standard from a high standar boxer to put in wikipedia given the exposure of this encyclopedia. I will be reverting the additions of images that seems to be superfluous or redundant for the article. If anyone disagree with any deletion, please, discuss it on the talk page before puting the image back, this way we will remain civilized and will also stop short a possible revert war. Loudenvier 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, although I'd hate to see my existing picture go away :-)  (And it would be hard to say which ones should go, but I'd rather see a more professional article.) I don't know how well this might represent the standard, but I'll submit this for consideration (if people want to use it I'd be happy to upload a larger image): (Image link removed) Rufus Sarsaparilla 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very beautiful dog!!! I´ve asked for a professional breeder if her was willing to submit a picture of one of her boxers champion and I think it's best for us to wait for her answer because such a dog would certainly, objectively, represent the standard! But seeing Morgan, and being non-objective, I dare to say that she would suffice! :-) Perhaps I could make a picture with her and the male champion... Let's wait a litle (the boxer I've asked permission to use his pictures have the ears cropped and it would be nice representing both cropped and natural ears). Regards (By the way I'vedownloaded your picture to my collection of Boxer pictures...) Loudenvier 01:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Loudenvier.  I know this isn't meant as a discussion forum for our dogs, and not to get all mawkish about it, but Morgan got cancer and died earlier this year at age 6.  She had been in great shape and she was gone within a day of discovering it.  It was that bad.  So that prompted me to upload the one picture with our cat -- very much a home picture but I had hoped also illustrated good domestic qualities.  Her dad was a champion but she was "just" a pet.  Anyway, that's all neither here nor there for making a good Boxer article.  We'll see what develops. Rufus Sarsaparilla 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am very sad to know that Morgan passed away so early. This picture of Morgan is of good quality. The lighting is good. It looks lika professional setup. Where it was taken? I think that this picture is a good candidate for the infobox! Once again, I feel very sorry by her passing this soon. Regards. Loudenvier 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way the Morgan picture currently in the article is one that is actually adding something to it: It shows a boxer coexisting with other pets. This picture will certainly stay in the article if we all got some good sense after all! But, isn't she a fawn boxer? Loudenvier 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks again for your comments.  She was a light Brindle. Rufus Sarsaparilla 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very disappointing -- I couldn't get permission to use the picture.  It's my dog and I paid money for the picture, but the photographer holds the copyright.  Maybe some day when we live in a more free culture.  I'll have to figure out how to get the picture removed from Wikipedia. Rufus Sarsaparilla 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really think that no contract could stop you from using the picture of your own dog that you yourself paid for... I would fight to get the photographer sued, he probably cheat you into signing a contract like that, where he takes the money for taking your picture and still holds copyright over it. How come you pay to give copyright to another one? Ridiculous... Regards. Loudenvier 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, the person who creates the work (the photographer) retains the copyright unless and until they release it.  If you'd like, you can use photos of my Champion male (cropped) - http://www.newcastleboxers.com/Images/hugo_stud.jpg - and my pointed female (uncropped) - http://www.newcastleboxers.com/Images/emma_jaxon_cropped.jpg - so long as they are considered different from the WikiMedia Commons images (they should not be considered public domain or free-for-all-use, etc.)  Newcastle 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really know much about WikiMedia Commons, but I think for Wikipedia in general, images need to be either fair use or licensed freely, e.g. GFDL or CC BY (SA is also fine, but not NC/ND). Rufus Sarsaparilla 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikimedia commons allows you to use other licenses than the GFDL. I think that the Attribion-Sharealike (by-sa)  license would probably be fine to you: You still got credit for the pictures and allows its use and derivative works, any of them will also need to credit you about the original. Regards Loudenvier 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many home-pictures 

message: We could incorporate a gallery of sorts with boxer pictures at the end of the article. I think that as a guideline the picture to be elligible for the gallery will have to come from Wikipedia Commons. This way it will not be only a gallery for vanity, but a gallery with images contributed to the public domain on the Wikipedia commons server which makes it possible to be used easyly in any other wikipedia in any other language. Of course, this gallery would have a limit imposed by common sense, but since I can't make sense of its preferable size right now I will not suggest any. Regards Loudenvier 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started the gallery with a few nice pictures, including the nice pet that didn't make into the article itself. Please, do not add further pictures to the article unless they bring some new information along (a good picture of a white boxer is desperately needed...). Also add only images to the gallery that are from wikimedia commons, this will help reducing the amount of duplicate files among wikipedia projects. Try to include only high quality images on the gallery. Remember: When you upload an image it will go to the public domain and anything could be done with it after that. If you don't feel confortable with that, then do not upload an image. This gallery will hopefully help protected the undesired growth of pictures inside the article, rendering it unreadable. Regards. Loudenvier 03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery and guidelines