Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 7

message: At this time, the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article's contributing editors, representing the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and ISSDC have read the most recent history section proposal and have mutually agreed (and asked me to post their individual feelings) that this version of the Shiloh Shepherd Dog history just does not accurately or adequately represent the factual history of their registries and the ISSDC club. While the editor's efforts are much appreciated and she is thanked for her contributions, these contributors will now continue efforts to work towards a full and accurate article, while doing so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies of good-faith, neutrality, verifiability, and civility. 
Therefore, the following history 2nd section proposal is submitted for consideration 
::In 1997, Ms. Barber stated she could no longer afford to maintain the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America. A mutual agreement was reached and contracts were drawn for her then SSDCA Vice-President to assume all responsibilities and operations of the Shiloh Shepherd dog club. With the acceptance and transfer of all currently active SSDCA memberships, the newly named International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club commenced active operation. 
::In 1998, Ms. Barber severed relations with the ISSDC club and reopened the SSDCA club. Many ISSDC members and long-time breeders chose to remain with the ISSDC club. 
::Due to inter-club conflicts, the ISSDC then found it necessary to establish the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club Registry. In 2001 the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) assumed registry functions for the then inactive ISSDC club. 
::Also in 2001, the National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established to provide an alternative registry service for Shiloh Shepherd breeders and fanciers, focusing on health, temperament and litter-mate information. During 2002, The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) was created, requiring additional health testing. 
::In 2004, with a mission emphasizing unity and shared vision, including Shiloh Shepherd health, promotion, advancement and protection, the ISSDC was reorganized as a parent club for the NSBR, the SSBA, and the TSSR registries. Breeders affiliated with these registries continue to breed toward the original Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard. 
::Today, the databases of the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA registries contain extensive detailed data, including complete Shiloh pedigrees obtained in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), as well as 45,000 GSD ancestors. 
::As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries. 
::Additional information about this breed can be found in several all-breed publications, websites, and books. The Shiloh Shepherd breed has grown in number and popularity, and it continues to be embraced by rare breed organizations and dog fanciers alike.
Thank you MilesD. 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified the statements about the dog clubs in the first paragraph, let me know if you think that better explains the history.    We actually don't have to inlcude numbers from the other registries, but was giving it a shot for consistency. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section of article - Second Section

message: Since this tag has been on the article for quite some time, I wanted to check and see what the remaining disputes are so we can begin to work on those. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: I would like to ask why there are discussions regarding this article taking place via private email instead of openly being discussed on this page so all involved can participate/comment.  If statements are being made that are not suitable for this talk page, then why are they being said at all?  What possible benefit are those comments to this article? SandraSS 13:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes things have gotten very heated here.  During those times, people involved have either requested clarification of Wikipedia policies and guidelines or wisely chosen to vent elsewhere and not be incivil on the talk page.  Any and all changes and comments to the article are made here and everyone is being given the chance to discuss.  I think however, given that I actually dreamed about Wikipedia policy the other night, I may just have answered one too many questions ;) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that most of this information is on each website!  I know for a fact that the ISSR has listed every litter ever born within it's registry until 2004? Updates are being prepared right now that should bring us all up to date for the past year.  What may not have been listed are the exact numbers of litters born at Shiloh Shepherds (kennel) that had AKC papers prior to that time.  However, I am sure that I can provide a reasonable estimate (with proof from past newsletters, etc.) if this is needed. Since the "other" registries are so new here, it shouldn't be hard for them to document the number of litters born within each (with names of Sire/Dam & DOB to prevent duplications)   MaShiloh 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but why would we need this information in the article? Breeding books are not generally verifiable information, so the number of litters is data that we probably can't put in the article. -Will Beback 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals/Comments for the Article 

message: Jareth wrote: 
<<<Any and all changes and comments to the article are made here and everyone is being given the chance to discuss>>> 
With this in mind I just became aware that the health section of the Shiloh article was changed yesterday with no chance to discuss. 
I have an objection to the edit made. I have spent the last hour visiting many of the other Wiki dog breed articles. What I have found are the breeds that do have a health section strictly address health issues related to the breed. Some of the breeds do make note that people interested in this breed should check the OFA web site for health verifications. 
In my search I did not see one instance where the health section linked to any breed clubs web site as ours has been editted to do. To avoid even more controversy pertaining to the Shiloh article I suggest that our health article be written like the majority of other Wiki dog breed articles just listing the health concerns prone to our breed and a link to OFA. This avoids self promoting links to original research containing a bias spin and keeps the article factual and neutral. 
If this is not acceptable, please revert the health section to the previous version for discussion and concensus.
Thank youShenandoahShilohs
:I was unaware there were any disputes with the rest of the article or I would have suggested the changes here first.  Since everyone is so focused on disputing the history section, I thought I could work on improving some of the other prose while that was being hammered out.  I did mention the change on the talk page above and even started a new article on SIBO to complement the section.
:The links are actually references/footnotes as I mentioned in my edit summary.  If the consensus is that the genetic task force and littermate xray programs don't merit inclusion, they can be removed.  Unfortunately, I'd have to suggest that many of the other dog breed articles are severely lacking -- in fact, there's an entire project devoted to improving those articles. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving the existing written history section of the article intact, while proposing and composing changes on the Talk page, is how we had been approaching the history section of the article.  The section's written content remained unedited, for the most part, as we are developing and discussing modifications, with the intent that these modifications will be added upon consensus.  This seems to have minimized article edit wars. I suggest you revert these edits to the Health section now, since there has been no discussion nor consensus about them, and that the information previously included prior to the edits, be restored.  Following discussion and consensus, they can always be added back in where appropriate.  Please advise.  Thank you.MilesD. 07:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:OWN or even WP:NOT.  It would benefit everyone if both groups would step down from the soapbox.  It is not necessary to campaign against every single percieved mention of one another in the article.  Please, for the sanity of everyone involved, take the fight somewhere more appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please calm down, Jareth.  You just said: "If the consensus is that the genetic task force and littermate xray programs don't merit inclusion, they can be removed."  I simply took you up on your offer and suggested you remove them at this time, rather than leave them in the article while they are being discussed, and restore what was there before. And, I provided reasons why I was suggesting this (because that's what we have been doing and because it would continue to help avert any edit wars). And I asked that you please advise what you thought about this idea. Nothing more was said or intended. I know you have expressed your frustrations with this article and the editors many times lately, but please try to assume some good faith in us. MilesD. 10:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not assuming anything at the moment, I simply suggested a few policies that could be reviewed.  I'd be happy to discuss any problems you have with the changes, but we cannot continue to hold the entire article hostage due to the number of people with vested interest who have involved themselves in the discussions.  Consensus and discussion is how this works -- there's no reason to start an edit war when you have people actively involved in the talk page and willing to communicate about the article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heath section of our article