Talk:Dog/Archive 4

message: I've read studies that indicate that dogs are more capable of recognizing human body positons than even chimpanzees and wolves; this apparently includes everything from physical pointing to actual eye signals, and is also present in puppies.  Obviously, this represents an important factor in understanding dog intelligence (particularly compared to wolves), and their interwoven nature with Homo sapiens.  Unfortunately, I don't have these studies on-hand (lost in a post-semester purge), so I thought I'd throw that out there to perhaps catch the attention of someone who knows what I'm talking about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.188.14 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog Social Intelligence 

message: I don't think the dog abuse section should go anywhere, it is vital to raise awareness about animal cruelty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamukaGirl (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog abuse 

message: There seems to be a lot of words spelled in the American way i.e. "behavioral" instead of "behavioural", and the word "amazing" next to the picture of three dogs doesn't seem right in an encyclopaedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyre (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually American words are perfectly okay for an encyclopedia. :) - However British subjects require British spelling, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have removed the word "amazing" from the caption.Coaster1983 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the point is in complaining about American spelling.  Either way, one of us is going to have to adapt.  In this case, it's our British (and Commonwealth) cousins; in other cases, it's the Americans.  It's not worth complaining about.  CsikosLo (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style says, "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial.", and says, "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic)."  See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some problems with the article 

message: Something about what is said about feral dogs in the article doesn't match with observations on feral dogs. Actually it doesn't even match with some articles in wikipedia. E.G. the Dingo is a feral dog too and they are excellent hunters, as well as the Carolina Dogs, who even seem to have some unique hunting skills. It's also wrong to assume that feral dog packs lack the social structure of wolf packs, you should browse for "Tuscany Dog Project" (thats a study concerning this topic) and the dogs there, although not completely feral, have a very complex social structure in their pack (check the german version of wikipedia if you like, there's a full article). Also wolves don't form packs on general, in Italy and in Germany as well many packs only consist of the parents, their current litter, and the litter of the last year. In Italy, there are many solitary wolves and many who only live in pairs, as well as quite a few packs of feral and semi-feral dogs who can hunt prey wolves aren't capable of and who are competing or interacting with wolves (depends on the situation). So all in all feral dogs aren't that poor.--168.224.32.15 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feral Dogs 

message: It seems like the whole paragraph was POV and/or derived from unreliable sources, so I commented it out for now.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog&diff=189737773&oldid=189712071
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Laughter in dogs?

message: Other than the danger of toxoplasmosis from eating cat feces, does any real harm result from dogs eating feces? If so, this should be stated. Also, I highly doubt that eating United States pennies is the most common cause of zinc poisoning in dogs worldwide ;-) 82.6.174.71 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same question...why is this in the dangerous substances category since it doesn't appear to actually be dangerous, distasteful as it may be to humans?  CsikosLo (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous substances 

message: Needs clarification and links to Dingo, New Guinea Singing Dog. Both are registered as dog breeds, while recognized as different species than Canis l familiaris
--Afru (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific classification 

message: There seems to be a paper saying that Indian subcontinent may be the cradle of dogs.
Blufox (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: Many have tried to change a dogs tones and looks into speech but so far none have succeded
And it's not the first time, that people classify the Indian or Arabian Wolf as the Dogs ancestor. Til now, no one is sure (some still say, that the dog orginated from a different dingo-like Canid of Europe [note there is no clear evidence for this and no other canid since the last Ice Age survived in the same area as the wolf {jackals, coyotes and dhole all dissapear from an area were the wolf settles down, so it's unlikely that there was a another canid in the same area as the wolf}]) were dogs originated or if they originated from different populations, or from one population and later mixed with others.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  speech 

message: In the "Smell" section, it reads "although once a matter of debate, it now seems to be well established that dogs can distinguish two different types of scents when trailing, an air scent from some person or thing that has recently passed by, as well as a ground scent that remains detectable for a much longer period."  The part I've bolded is the end of one independent clause and the beginning of another, separated by a comma :-O  Can someone who can edit the page fix this?  68.101.75.128 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dithered over whether to change it to a semicolon (treating the second clause as a closely-related independent clause) or to a colon (treating the second clause as a list – though of just two items). I looked to Strunk & White (Do not join independent clauses by a comma), and found that they say: "If two or more clauses, grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction, are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon." However, the second clause inthe requoted fragment isn't grammatically complete. The requoted sentence fragment is the second independent clause of a larger sentence  which already separates two independent clauses with a semicolon. I ended up rewriting the requoted fragment as , "although once a matter of debate, it now seems to be well established that dogs can distinguish two different types of scents: an air scent from some person or thing that has recently passed by, and a ground scent that remains detectable for a much longer period." I should have paid more attention to my 5th grade English teacher. (I clearly have too much time on my hands today) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smell grammar problem 

message: from the article on 'Natufians:
 Domesticated dog
It is at Natufian sites that the earliest archaeological evidence for the domestication of the dog is found. At the Natufian site of Ein Mallaha in Israel, dated to 12 000 BP, the remains of an elderly human and a four-to-five-month-old puppy were found buried together.[3] At another Natufian site at the cave of Hayonim, a man was found buried with two canids.[3]
zgarbi.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.157.197 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the article currently dates dog domestication earlier than this (between 17,000 and 14,000  BP) but does not cite a supporting source. The Natufian culture article, however, does support the 12,000 BP date with a cite of .  I have not changed the unsupported info in the article, but I believe that it would be OK to change the unsupported article info to the later cite-supported date, citing the supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest dog domestication 

message: Not sure where or if this could/should be included in the article, but I'll put it out there should anyone find any use for it: "As we were walking about, Madame de Montholon drove away a dog that had come near her.--'You do not like dogs, Madam?' said the Emperor.--'No, Sire.'--'If you do not like dogs, you do not like fidelity; you do not like those who are attached to you; and, therefore, you are not faithful.'--'But . . . but . . . ' said she--'But . . . but . . . ' repeated the Emperor, 'where is the error in my logic?  Refute my arguments if you can!'" - Napoleon Bonaparte, The Opinions and Reflections of Napoleon, ed. Lewis Claflin Breed (Boston: The Four Seas Company, 1926), 387.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting reference

message: I once visited a pet shop in the Philippines which had a white dog with some black spots.  Its right eye was brown, whereas its left one was gray.  Is this normal?  Does this variation in eye color affect the dog's eyesight?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.52.18 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye color

message: just a quick note. reference number 59 states that jesus is quoted as calling non-hebrews dogs. This is incorrect as ANY casual reading of the referenced source will show. check it on http://www.blueletterbible.org/   using the cited passage Mark 7:24-30 using ANY version of the bible you like. At any rate, what is this doing in an article about dogs anyhow? totally irrelevant.
Zuck (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree after reading the source. I've removed that sentence. Franamax (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Someone wrote "hellooo" in tne introductory paragraph.  I can't edit because of the semiprotection status, but someone should take care of this tiny little nuisance.MosKillinest (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: In the article, it was stated, that domestic dogs, do not regurgitate food for their young. This is certainly true in many cases, however, I wouldn't be so sure if that is really the norm since there have been documented cases where the bitches did it. I corrected this part of the article and referenced my sources. The sources are in german so I would be happy If somebody knew the english titles of the books.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No regurgitating of food? 

message: I have a dog and I also have 2 cats; a friend noticed my dog grooming himself, and  when my dog was washing his face, he thought that the dog had picked up this grooming trait from my cats. My dog licked one of his paws then washed his face with this paw. Is this normal dog grooming behaviour or has he adopted it from the cats?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.97.0 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussions about the article itself. If you have any general questions, you should take it to our Reference Desk. Thank you! Paragon12321 05:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do dogs wash their faces like cats do? 

message: In the portion about predation of Dogs, it should say, "South Orange County, California" for clarification.  I live in Orange County, Florida, and believe it or not, coyotes are in Central Florida too.  Jalemo (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: South Orange County

message: The cite only covers grapes, and there seems to be a lack of reliable references. Moreover having seen people worried over a drooped square of chocolate some context would be good:- "20 ounces of milk chocolate—or only two ounces of baking chocolate—can cause serious problems in a 10-pound dog."http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pro_apcc_faq#chocolate  - basically a dog eating over 10% of its body weight in chocolate. (The same paragraph describes "pancreatitis, an inflammatory condition of the pancreas." - which in WP would I hope become "pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas).)"  
Rich Farmbrough, 17:43 30 August 2008 (GMT).
:I've edited that part of the article a bit, attempting to improve the cites. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dog poison" request for improvement in details and cites

message: Here's a story link. I'm not a regular editor here and it looks like if I added it to External links it might not have survived. 5Q5 (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  World oldest dog dies 

message: It's only personal opinion, but my first thought was that (even though on looking closer it doesn't look this way) the dog looks very aggressive, giving dogs a bad view.a dog is a mix Teancum (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider changing the top picture 

message: .50]] (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small (but big) number problem 

message: Isn't it true that dog saliva has curative properties? They're often seen licking their own wounds, and there are tales abound about people who let their dogs lick their wounds, which healed faster than you can say "Neosporin". If it is indeed true, it should be added to the entry.
Whitereflection (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dog saliva, like many saliva present a strong concentration of antibacterial properties, hence can be considered as curative.
--200.73.30.108 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog saliva 

message: as i'm sure everyone has noticed the heading is completely nonsensical. Yosh76063 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the article was vandalized.  I have restored the article to a previous version. --Coaster1983 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  heading 

message: The remains of dogs dating to 31,700 years ago found.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1078803/Mans-oldest-friend-Scientists-discover-grandad-modern-dogs--31-700-years-ago.html
Calypsoparakeet (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Ancient Dogs Discovered 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support for move. Mieciu K (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Changed to oppose Dog is the most common name, and so complies with policy. Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor  11:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: National Geographic, University of Pennsylvania ,scientific paper on domestic dogs, no biologist or genetic scientist would use the term "dog" and "domestic dog" as synonyms.Mieciu K (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those links do not challenge what is the universally accepted encyclopedic name. There is a consensus of all major encyclopedias and we should stick with encyclopedic standard. M0RD00R (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And your links do not challange that scientists use the term "domestic dog". There is already a Simple English Wikipedia, there is no need to simplify this Wikipedia. Mieciu K (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Brittanica, neither Encarta, neither Columbia Encyclopedia are Simple English encyclopedias, they are English encyclopedias, so is English Wikipedia. Encyclopedic standartd is obvious, there is no need for wheel reinvention. M0RD00R (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is long enough as it is. I'm trying to get it to GA status, and adding more information is going to make it just that little bit harder. A section on feral dogs will just use up space. Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor  21:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So adding information to an encyclopedia article is antithetical to your personal goals? Why is that of interest to me? Feral dogs are quite germane to the topic of dogs, and are discussed already in the article. Do you wish to instead create Pet dogs? Franamax (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

text: And to expand that a bit: dogs as a life form have been shaped by humans but exist independently of humans. Take away the humans and there will still be dogs, thus they don't exist as a subset of humanity, which is what the "(domestic)" label implies. The dog in general deserves treatment, with obvious weight towards breeds and domestic uses. Nevertheless, once they run away, they are able to maintain their own existence. Franamax (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation: If people were to suddenly go extinct in most continents the domesticated dogs would go extinct in a matter of decades, as they would not stand a chance competing with wolves. Mieciu K (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant (and unlikely; a spaniel has a different ecological niche than a wolf, and a Rottweiler may well hybridize). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't count those cute spaniels out, I'd wager they can hybridize with the best of 'em ;) Franamax (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: *Indeed, precision is only supposed to come into play when it's a necessity.  --Serge (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The single reference used as a source for the content on the consumption of dog meat in Switzerland is an entry on a blog, which itself refers to two other articles, one in Chinese and another that no longer exists at that URL. As a result, this content is not properly referenced under WP:RS and I'm removing it. Mr. Darcy talk 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog meat in Switzerland