Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 10

message: Take a break folks.  Seriously.  Go live lives outside of Wikipedia.
Its obvious that quite a number of people here have no interest whatsoever in following the guidelines of Wikipedia.  Regardless of how many times its been requested that people read things like the neutral point of view policy or the guidelines on being civil we continue to have constant bickering over every last facet of the article.  This silliness over the pictures is really the last straw.
I'm seriously tired of being called names, yelled at and told how stupid Wikipedia is because it won't let you put your point of view in the article.  Them's the rules folks.  If you don't like it, please feel free to express yourselves elsewhere.  If you cannot and will not follow the guidelines and contribute to the article, get the hell out.
An RfC has already been started on one of the contributors; I'm seriously considering expanding it to include the behavior of all of the editors who've come here with nothing but a vested interest in this article and have done absolutely nothing to further the article or anything else on Wikipedia for that matter.
For those of you who have worked hard to compromise and find consensus, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate all of your efforts and the fortitude you've shown to stick with it.  For those of you who've taken this chance to learn about the spirit of Wikipedia, I hope you'll go on and continue to contribute in other places -- this dispute is in no way an example of the typical behavior of Wikipedians.
In the grand scheme of things, the content of the article matters little -- the behaviors shown here speak volumes on their own. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all of the registries/clubs/other vested parties 

message: I added a few details about the conditions listed in the health section to help expand the section a bit.  Any other thoughts for that section? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm putting the references into the proper section, Dr. Padgett's study is one of the references for the health section, so it will appear there. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I know right now there's concern on both sides that some of the references contain one or another POV and you'd be correct.  However, we do have both sides represented so that both are available to readers.  We need to try to maintain this balance, but we can't pretend that the POVs and the dispute surrounding them doesn't exist. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have brought this conversation to the Health section topic.
Further, there are other health concerns not mentioned, some more prevalent than some that are mentioned. I am in the process of reviewing the wording and content of the health section. An example I do not agree with the wording of hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia occurs from a malformation of the hip, not from incomplete growth. Can we slow down here and give editors a chance to comment on this health section? 
Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What other conditions do you feel should be mentioned? Are there any listed now that you don't believe is a prevalent health issue? And you're right about dysplasia, improper growth would have been a better wording, but I'm sure there's an even better way to put it than that -- feel free to fix it :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how prevalent these are in the general population, but I know there are dogs affected by EPI and SAS.  SandraSS 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: Haven't seen an answer to this yet, so please comment.  What remaining factual disputes are there on the article?  That tag really isn't meant to stay there forever, just until the dispute is cleared up.  Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also hesitant to remove the dispute tag, with other sections unfinished.  Thanks to all for the good compromises and helpful suggestions the last couple of days.  S Scott 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Due to recent insertions there are still disputes and removing the tag would be premature. ShenandoahShilohs 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: I LOVE what you have done with the article!!  I was looking at it last night and trying to figure out how to move the pictures around to make it look "less cluttered"  Love the Gallery and reference section you added too. Good job!!  
Just a thought tho.  Could the picture of Laz be put back in the Appearance section next to the size part?  Just because you have labled him as "showing size"  SandraSS 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was trying to expand the appearance section so we could fit him right up there too -- anyone want to take a stab at adding some more description up there?  Its just about long enough now :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I squeezed and added some more appearance info.  Now to work on the poor temperment section -- it looks so out of place since everything else is growing. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you've uploaded it, just let me know where its at, if not, you can go to my user page, click on Email this user (in the lower left hand box) and send it over, or:
#Click on "upload file" in the sidebar
#Select the file from your computer that you want to upload
#Select a descriptive name for the image
#Select the appropriate license for the file
#Edit the page you want the image to appear on, and include in the gallery:  Image:(Filename you chose in step 4).(extension of file, case sensitive)|Caption text
# Save the page with an edit summary that describes what you did (eg. "added image") .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Job!! 

message: On the article page, there is one place that I would like, somehow, to clean up. Between the contents list and the top picture, there is a wide white blank space. Can there be something added, enlarged, placed there so that the reader is prompted to scroll down. As it stands, It comes up on most screens as a large void. I would like to see something that would hook the reader to want to read through the article, in that blank void. What about the puppy picture? That may crowd that area, but not if it is done with balance. Any other suggestions? iamgateway 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that's a software thing -- we can't actually put anything in there.  The breed box on the right gets away with it because its stuffed in a table at the very top of the article.  I tried to put some longer section titles in so there isn't quite so much white space, but I'm afraid we're mostly stuck with it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Appearance: Suggestion 

message: We were so close, it was at consensus. What happened! A random suggest was made when the article was at consensus: 
"Maybe the other registries could also suggest additional factual information that could be added to the other sections -- or perhaps we could consider greatly expanding the section and seperating into breed history, club history and registry history?"  
Why this was made, I am not sure, at all. But here it is again, the disputes. And I have to admit, what has been added since that suggestion, should be disputed. Pictures wars came out, NPOV added, editing wars are seemingly going to start up, this is getting very frustrating especially since we were on the verge of concensus. So many editors have spent hours working very hard for this article only to find it in "round two" of things already discussed and settled upon a long time ago. Is there anyway that we can go back to the article that WAS in consensus, revert it to that point and then move forward again? My concern is that editing wars are looming. Editors are making changes without discussion, or respect of presentation to all the other editors working on this article. It is not a single handed literary piece here even though that would make it so much easier to finish, but as it is, there are many passionate editors working with this article. And to make it more tedious, two groups of editors with obvious tension are trying to participate and agree. I just don't understand why the pot was stirred to begin with when we had come so far and we were moving forward. What can be done to bring this article around again? iamgateway 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like what Jareth has done in expanding the article.  She has put a lot of time and work into it and it looks 100% better than it was before. SandraSS 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I don't think that anyone is disputing that the article has not made forward progress, or the time and efforts put forth by all the editors here.  Words such as "immiators" and "dissidents" that were initially present are no longer found, incorrect "TM" symbols have been removed, and I would think that everyone agrees we are getting closer to a NPOV representation of the breed.  Unfortunately, just when it appears forward progress begins, set-backs are raised and delay the further development and completion of the article.  Gwyllgi 
It isn't the restructuring that I was/am concerned about, it is the addition of the links that have been discussed in the past, that were reinstated knowing the disputes that some had behind them. However, if editors from both sides agree to what is being added and is visible as part of the article, I have said I would go with concensus. The disputes are not over the format of article but with the current disputed addition of certain pictures of the dogs and the new addition of the links that don't seem to fall under the Wikipedia rules for links. But if editors from both sides feel this is acceptable and it is approved, then by all means, concensus has been met. Maybe I am misunderstanding the progress, I will revisit the history and editors discussions. iamgateway 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute arises all over again 

message: Busy day yesterday, with lots happening.  We'd like to suggest that the editors give each other time to mull over the recent changes and suggestions before making or proposing more edits to the article.    Thank you, S Scott 17:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request about recent changes

message: If you take a look at this page, you might be surprised to discover that the BMDCA published their report in almost  the same format that we did!!
http://www.bmd.org/health/surveyreport.html
http://www.bmd.org/health/surveyreport.html
This page explains HOW this survey works, and WHAT the results mean!
http://kryptiks-lair.tripod.com/id2.html
I would like to STRONGLY urge you to read this page!!!
It does not list dogs names ... just GUESSTIMATE % CARRIER FREQUENCY 
For example ... there is a 32% possibility that the dog you are using/breeding to will produce UH .. this helps the breeder dig deeper in order to get more statistics regarding THAT disease within the lines that they have chosen.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
http://www.beaconforhealth.org/Nsltr%20Aug%2001.pdf
Many breed clubs participated in these surveys .. the smaller ones have chosen NOT to publish the raw data publicly, but just have it available to the breeders, due to the political problems that many breed clubs have to deal with!
http://www.kerryblues.info/index.html?http%3A//www.kerryblues.info/HEALTH/2004SCOPE.HTML
http://www.nsdtrc-usa.org/h&g.htm
http://www.gsmdca.org/health/healthsurveysummary.pdf
http://www.briardsbriards.com/breeding_healthier_dogs.htm
PLEASE NOTE;
Although Dr. Padgett's hope for complete and open sharing  of information is a tall order and perhaps somewhat idealistic, the primary point must not be lost-you must identify the problems before you can attempt to fix the problems. A first step for a breed to attempt to learn where problems lie is through health surveys. If it will help reporting, measures can be taken to be certain that these are completely anonymous. The Briard Club of America will send out a health survey in April 2000 to try to identify all of the potentially genetic diseases affecting Briards. This survey will be received and compiled by a third party group. No one owning a Briard will know the result of any individual survey (except their own, of course.) Hopefully, with this survey, if certain problems are found to be widespread, then perhaps a climate of openness and understanding can allow for sharing of information. In this way pedigrees can be analyzed and strides can be made to determine inheritance patterns, develop new tests (genetic of phenotypic) and hopefully decrease the occurrence of the diseases in the Briard. To meet these lofty goals those who own, breed, and love Briards can rise to the challenge. 
More examples;
http://izebug.syr.edu/~gsbisco/cbhealth.html
http://www.chinook.org/health2.html
In conclusion, I would like to suggest that you read http://www.doginfomat.com/EXCHANGE_Summer2000.pdf
I will try to set some time aside to find & list ALL of the breed clubs that have participated in Dr. Padgett's survey, because I believe that this information is extremely important for ALL (honest) breeders to understand.
  Open registries?  Yes, that would be nice, but with the politics that seem to effect the clubs & "registries" within OUR world ... this is not likely going to happen until the Shiloh Shepherd gets FULL recognition, and has only ONLY parent club to represent everyone!!
In the meantime .. if your group gives a darn about this 'breed' why do you spend so much energy trying to bash me &  the ISSR, instead of trying to start an OPEN disease registry (like AWSA did) for the dogs you are breeding???
I know that ONE person tried to do this some time ago .. and if anyone here wants to SEE this information, I would suggest that they join the ShilohZone!!!  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ShilohZone/   MaShiloh 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Padgett's Health Survey's 

message: Since its been suggested before and is obviously a large part of everything going on, it seems important that a statement of the dispute be added. "As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries." -- While it acknowledges the difference of opinion, it give no information as to what it might be and needs to be clarified.  From what I've gathered, the dispute is essentially that the breed founder and the associated club and registry feel that they should be the only ones using the Shiloh name and state that the other registries allow outcrosses that are diluting the breed and may be producing dogs that do not meet the standards.  The other registries positions should probably be broken out by registry and club unless each one has the same position.  The NSBR believes that breeders should have more control over their breedings and that information should be shared more freely.  The TSSR states that they were formed to raise the standards for health testing.  The SSBA doesn't appear to have a mission statement or something similar available at this time.  The ISSDC states that it exists to avoid the nasty political conflicts, unify registries and believes the SSDCA is controlled by one person's ego (I assume this is a reference to the breed founder).
If that appears to be a clear statement of the positions involved in the dispute, we should write it up and its probably makes sense to leave it at the end of the history section.  If you feel this is not a clear statement of the dispute, please provide a reference to support your changes; I have used each organizations official website as a basis.  If anyone has suggestions on how this could be worded, please feel free to suggest them :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, its policy: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy." .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of dispute 

message: I guess in reading all this ... the disputes & so on.. ARBA ( American Rare Breed Association)  recognized this breed  in 1990- 1991, as has been stated.  SO now we have all the disputes about this & that.... my question would be ( this goes back to the beginning of all of this on  the Wiki site listing of the Shilohs as an original article).... 
When the Shilohs were recognized by ARBA.... were the pedigrees  the breed founder provided to ARBA  ( ARBA as per my understanding requires 3  FULL generations of provable parentage to even recognize a breed in the 1st place) - Im not sure infact that what was provided to them  ( nor are many with in the existing Shiloh Community) are accurate pedigrees or credible? She - Ms. Barber , talks about this phenominal TCCP database she has as far as pedigree/health testing goes, BUT as has been stated..  NONE of it has ever been published to date & unfortunately as well.... the "keeper" of that  database is now deseaced - <name removed>. 
 She does no DNA now that anyone is aware of currently ( although used to require it per the original ISSR reg rules - Breeding quality or pet - I can provide previous links to substanciate this, I dont feel the need  however because everyone posting here is aware of this FACT!), & since the original "keeper" of the Shiloh  DNA database is defunct - Stormont Labs - everyone ( the SSBA, TSSR & NSBR)  had to re-submit their DNA to UCDavis for new verification of the lineage they have.  The "splinter" registeries as the BF calls them, were not allowed any access to  any of the previous DNA profiles to be transfered by Stormont - as thier "profiles" of matching & storage were somehow different???? and as well the ISSR has never allowed info to be shared on DNA profiles anyway.   would like to know at what point EXACLY, the ISSR began submitting DNA to Stormont Labs to prove parentage.. & infact IF there are even 3 generations that can actually be proven ( minimally) to establish this breed in the 1st place.  Im sure that Stormonts records could be summonsed to a court hearing to determine such, weather they are still in business or not.  Because "documents" were provided to ARBA doesnt PROVE there is a breed.   UKC requires 6 generations of a breed - un-interrupted by an outcross ( such as CJ's Bullet for example) to establish a breed.  I realize that every "show" organization may have a different criteria for breed recognition, as do most large scale respectable "registries".  I think it is important to establish first Jareth  that given  all that has been posted here.. & alot of FACTS  (LOL) have apparently  been.  You may want to contact the original "recognizing"  organization with this information & ask them?? IS THERE EVEN A BREED??   THE NSBR has CJ's Bullet, who is also  an AKC GSD, not a big issue, except for all the people talking about health testing here.  He has none, except fot hips... But he went to bed one night as an AKC recognized GSD & woke up the next morning with NSBR registered FULL SHiloh Shepherd registration papers ( Im sure <name removed> can change that on her home computer according on what she needs to prove  for the "moment") But BULLET is still listed on Selahs's  GSD's site as a GSD owned by Cj's Kennels. SO  you gonna tell me that a dog is BOTH a FULL Shiloh & as well an AKC reg GSD??  I have a copy of his AKC registration,  how would AKC feel about Bullet today???  I got a gut feeling not  real happy. Tina the breed founder ( ISSR Shilohs) has done the same thing.. except there is a "GAP" in her lineage which I believe puts an end even to the 3G uninterrupted lineage even ARBA sets in place Jareth.  That would be a breeding of a dog named Sampsoon WOO ( a KNOWN wolf dog - which ARBA does NOT  accept or recognize ( as a breed let alone an outcross for a breed) but Tinas daughter has been photographed showing & his pedigree has been circulating for years - guess all these posterd forgot to mention all these issues) & Super Sweet Sabrina -  a female out of  - YEP you ( may have) geussed it!!! Bullets breeder - Selah Kennels   LOL - Selah as far as I am aware does NOT do DNA - so her lineage would as well be hard to prove.  
Jareth, they can all prove what they are producing NOW...   they can prove what was produced when we all used Stormont.. Tina cant PROVE  what  was produced ( & if she can I would encourage  that you request she provide documentation here to support it)prior to ARBA recognizing this breed or perhaps even when they agreed to for that matter.  You can ALL scream even AKC didnt require DNA until aprox 1997-98 ( & even I personally & always have found AKC DNA progam an insult to my intelligence)  & was originally only required on the stud, im not sure " who shook the bed & woke them up that you need it on both the stud & bitch to prove anything, but originally it was only required  on the stud, that produced 3 or more litters in a year or 9 or more in a lifetime - why bother reuqiring anything - im sure you are understaning my direction Jareth.
SO - is there really a breed?? ( I have personally pd  nearly 6K for 4 dogs I have  long since retired - to discover there may not even be an established breed afterall originally) in fact all this is about?? I would encourage you to ck into some of this Jareth.
Now mind you, I know what is going to transpire as a result of my post LOL, all of the other registries are gonna say hmmmmmmm can we prove atleast 3 uninterrupted generations??? Trouble is they cant either , they have all had OTX litters, except maybe the orig ISSDC ( which 'fermented' into the SSBA), but their "foundation lineage" is of the original split from the ISSR ( <name removed> ) which as well, likely is not provable lineage either  LOL round & round (they) go. Tina if you can prove it FEEL FREE!!! POST IT.. post the   supporting docs HERE to prove what  got  the Shilohs accepted by ARBA.. I think that would be  valuable information to establish " THE BREED" cause if there ever was one, I personally SURE dont believe their is one now!!! Tina sure cant prove there is. There  is  DNA on Bullet offspring, but...  "who" is bullet?? is he a Shiloh? or is he a GSD??
<removed personal attack>
Regards Jareth,
Lisa Trendler
:Unfortunately, we do need proof.  Please see the policies on verifiability and citing sources.  If the breed is not recognized by ARBA or some other claims you mention are published and you can provide the source for that information, the article can be changed to reflect that.  If this is personal knowledge and you'd be asking editors to view documents and come to their own conclusions, we cannot use the information per the no original research policy.  Thanks for the comments. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Jareth - Moderator?? Breed Recognition & other issues regarding this "listing" 

message: When I go to the article page - not the discussion page, but the article itself, this is what I get:
Shiloh Shepherd Dog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
Start the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article or add a request for it. 
Search for Shiloh Shepherd Dog in other articles. 
Look for Shiloh Shepherd Dog in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project. 
Look for Shiloh Shepherd Dog in the Commons, our repository for free images, music, sound, and video. 
Look for pages within Wikipedia linking to this article. 
Corinne Corfil 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try again in a while.  I have no problem displaying the article itself.  However, I have seen a similar glitch recently with a different page.  I think it is a system glitch.  Robert McClenon 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been a few posts elsewhere about this same problem; apparently the database is responding slowly causing pages to show up as if they didn't exist. If you refresh that seems to fix the problems most of the time -- some people have reported having to clear their temporary internet files before the page came back. Sorry :( .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the article?

message: This temporary injunction has been passed in the Shiloh arbitration:
1) Until the resolution of this case,  and  are banned from Shiloh Shepherd Dog. 
This injunction has received the requisite four net support votes.  If breached, it can be enforced by a short block.  The ban does not apply to edits on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog.
Enacted on 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary ban from [[Shiloh Shepherd Dog]]

message: The article has been unprotected.  Any reasonable edits may be made by those not named in the temporary injunction.  Controversial edits should probably be avoided for the duration of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: I was going to ask if anyone still objected to the removal of the disputed tag, however, after looking through the history and the talk page archives again, it appears since that the disputed section (History) reached consensus, the tag is no longer necessary.  If anyone has any further factual concerns about the article, please discuss it here.  Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the final version of the article or can edits continue to be made?  SandraSS 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are always available to edit, there are no "finished" versions. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The disputed tag that wouldn't die 

message: In the Gallary section, there is a picture of a human with lettering "STOP LUKE LISTEN".. called Luke.jpg... 
Obviously not a dog... 
But the caption underneath says it is a dog. Is this some kind of joke?
Could someone fix this please?
:Fixed before I even saw the talk page. It works now :-) Captainktainer * Talk 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of human says Dog in caption 

message: Can something be done about the "editor" that keeps adding the phrase "or King Shepherd" to the article?  A Shiloh Shepherd is not a King Shepherd. Also, I am not sure why a link to the Leonberger wiki page has been included under the "See Also" heading. Gremlyn 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes to Article 

message: These places don't seem to be genuine rescues but rather places that sell retiring breed stock and unwanted puppies.  That's not Rescue work - that's a commerical venture. Wikipedia doesn't permit links to commercial ventures.  One dog for "rehoming" is being offered at $1000 US.  Surely it doesn't cost that much to spay a dog in need of a home.  They appear to be for-profit groups unloading retired animals and pups that don't meet the needs of breeders.  if they must be linked to, and I don't see why they should given the asking fees which are way out of line with other Breed rescues, they need to be recategorized as "Rehoming organizations for retiring breed stock "  Any group can call itself a rescue and get a non-profit desigantion, but not all groups doing that are truly rescuing dogsLiPollis 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on their pages when I added the comments - have they since removed them?  If so, you can remove the remark of the charges but these are re-homing of retired breed stock and not "rescues" in the accepted sense of the word.  I have never seen other breeders call the sale of retired breeders "rescues".  Most breed rescues do require a donation but they are set up as non-profits.  They don't set up a schedule of fees and only rehome breedstock.  I just checked and right now, you can rescue one female for a mere $1000!  Very few breed rescues demand more than costs for an adoption donation. LiPollis 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a moot point now since the only organization still tagged and confirmed as charging those kinds of fees is the Shilo "Rescue" network. There is not currently any mention I could find of the fee schedule for adoption on the ISSDC pages.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.LiPollis 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern of listed "Rescue" links