Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 5

message: *Revision B - I support this revision as the only one of the three offered that is completely unbiased and unemotional and the most factual.  ShilohshepherdJudy
*I fully support Revisions B, I feel it is neutral to all parties while still addressing the concerns of Tina Barber that her ISSR has recognition that she developed it and it was one of the first to Register the Shiloh Shpherd. ShenandoahShilohs
*Revision B is the obvious choice as it states the facts in a neutral and unbiased format while still giving credit to Ms Barber, the SSDCA and the ISSR as the founder, first club and originating registry of the Shiloh Shepherd. Dartagnan
*Revision B is fair and unbiased.  It follows the form requested by both the SandraSS and Barber Proposals, demonstrating good-faith. It includes some information requested in the SandraSS and Barber Proposals, demonstrating compromise.  It makes no judgments, promotes no agenda and is non-political (in that it does not comment on nor compare various registries/clubs affiiated with the breed), demonstrating a lack of bias. It appropriately emphasizes and acknowledges the contributions of the breed founder and it is accurate in its description of the breed's history, demonstrating a willingness to negotiate and neutrality. I support Revision B. MilesD. 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support Revision (B)

message: *I find Tina Barber's version of the history to be the most appropriate.  There isn't anything in it that is misleading -- in fact, knowing how strongly she feels about this issue, I thought she went out of her way to be neutral in expressing the fact that other registries have been formed.  The only reason I can think of that some might not like this version is that it does not specifically name the newer registries.  Is that the problem?  I wouldn't have an issue with including the list of other registries, as long as the following statement was added: "The breed founder continues to affiliated with the SSDCA and does not recognize or participate in the activities of the other registries."  This is not meant to be inflamatory, it is simply stating a fact. 
:The most important thing to remember in this entire discussion is that the breed is still under development.  The gene pool must be closed, monitored and carefully controlled in order to set the breed characteristics, and all of this must be fully documented and all of the data collected in one place if the Shiloh Shepherd is ever to be recognized by the AKC or by any of the more mainstream organizations.  Therefore the existence of multiple registries, or at least the compromise in version B that implies that all of the registries are equal, is ultimately detrimental to the breed.  
:I support revision C and Tina Barber. She's the breed founder after all...  Who else deserves the right to describe her work?  No one!  24.189.231.226 05:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not vote twice.  Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support Revision (C)

message: It doesn't appear we have a consensus for any of the proposed versions; back to the drawing board.  Lets rewrite or discuss particular changes that would make the proposals work. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion