Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 8

message: Is everyone ok with this part of the history?  If so we can go ahead and move it into the article and get started on the second part.
:In 1974, Tina Barber, of Shiloh Shepherd Kennel in New York State, began  developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of  dog she remembered from her childhood in Germany; dogs who are good family  companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to  Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo.  After years of selective breeding  and genetic research, she seperated her dogs from the AKC in 1990.
:In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was incorporated.   Shilohs were originally registered dually through the FIC and AKC, but after  difficulty with standards verification, the SSDCA decided to open the first  Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). Due to some  documentation problems with the original ISSR registrar, a special program was  designed by The Complete Computer Place (TCCP) to process registry data for the ISSR. Since then more than 4,000 dogs have been registered with the ISSR. They also  maintain a database with over 45,000 ancestors in order to properly calculate various  factors within the limited genepool.
Thanks .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there haven't been any objections, I'll go ahead and move this to the article so we can focus on working the second section.  I also hope to be able to expand and work on some of the other sections today to get closer to the Manual of Style guidelines and start setting this article up for featured article status. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not too late at all, there's no time when an article is considered "finished".  I did notice that some dates are missing, like the TCCP you mentioned.  You might want to consider rewriting it and then posting it on here before making the changes to the article since that seems to be working to prevent edit-wars. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First section of history

message: Alright, since neither of the versions posted earlier were acceptable to everyone, I've tried again to make some changes and merge the two a bit.  Please let me know what other concerns you have (or feel free to rewrite again yourself).
:In 1997, due to financial difficulties, the SSDCA was closed for a period of time. Then SSDCA Vice-President, Gary Allison, accepted responsibility for running a club for the breed and so the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. In 1998, due to several disagreements, the ISSDC annouced they would open their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. The SSDCA was reopened shortly afterwards.  More than half of the breeders chose to remain with the ISSDC.
:In 2001, the ISSDC and its registry were closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed its registry functions. Also in 2001, the National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established. During 2002, The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) and the United Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club Registry (USSDCR) were established. The USSDCR closed in 2003.
:In 2004, with a mission emphasizing unity and shared vision, the ISSDC was reorganized as a parent club for the NSBR, the SSBA and the TSSR.  Today, the databases of these registries contain Shiloh pedigrees taken in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), as well as the pedigrees of 45,000 GSD ancestors.
:As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries. 
.:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you would discuss what changes you'd like to see made so we can move forward.  Unless you're planning on writing another version? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another draft 

message: The following are perfect examples of why there should never be original research used and why third party references are so vital.
When it is "original" research that research can be changed and manipulated to present the writers view point at will. 
<<Please note that there IS a difference between a person that "joined" the "breeders program - school" and one that actually BRED a litter! Karen has prepared a detailed outline showing EXACT numbers! MaShiloh 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be safe to say that no one would know anything about these dogs if it weren't for the numerous pages of articles that Tina has written throughout the years and information she has shared via her web sites? All of which is considered original research and POV.  SandraSS 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh Patty, give it up!! If everyone that walks on this earth, joins a club, visits a show, or even joins a school is called a *breeder* then everyone's stat's are way off!! I have 1087 members on our forum .. should I call all of *them* "breeders"??? I think that if you check the Wiki .. some place it's got to clearly show that only a person that BRED a litter -- is a *breeder* What about the folks that go to a car lot to test drive a new car?? How many of them buy it?? Can you call all of them "buyers"?? Some are just "potential" buyers!!! Same with our LB's .. some may never breed a litter ... but they signed up to get licensed & will stay there till they leave ... period!!!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: More BS ... Patty, you were there when Gary announced his *new* registry ... do I have to get others to sign statements to that effect?? That's when I brought the SSDCA, Inc. back into the picture ... not after the Grand Island standoff when I left *his* club .. but after I found out that he was starting a registry!! Granted, he didn't publish it till Feb .. but I have proof that the plan was in the works as of Nov. 97!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The edits were moved as the poster has been asked repeatedly not to break up posts by inserting her own comments within others posts. An Admin has moved many of this posters edits as well, and has authorized others to do the same, since the poster repeatedly ignores requests to follow respectful protocal.
ShenandoahShilohs 14:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research vs third party verification