Talk:Australian Cattle Dog/Archive 2

Questioning Featured Article status
The article appears to have been elevated to FA status by an owner of the breed about which the article is written. And within the article, there is a concerted effort to hold the sourcing and referencing for light, 'positive' and glowing anecdotal information to a very low standard, while information on the breed's aggressive and dangerous temperament is held to a much higher standard. In an act of blatant incivility, sources that contain relevant, vetted data are not cogently argued, but rather are repeatedly called "bullshit". These acts of incivility are intended to discourage other editors rather than encourage broadening of the article's focus. At least one editor is removing edits from the article based on its Featured Article status, implying the article should be treated differently because it's "featured." All of this keeps the article from being balanced. All of this suggests the article is being "owned." It suggests that the article is the content is controlled by a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question, in other words, a fancruft article &mdash; clouded by bias, lacking balance or neutrality.842U (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Best to stick to individual issues. Sentences cited above as problematic should be discussed there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing Other Editors' Talk Page Comments
I see bad behavior on both sides. Please give a read to WP:TPO. Generally, it is more appropriate to archive talk page comments you do not feel add value, rather than deleting them. However, some editors here appear to be headed for an edit war, so I would encourage all parties to stop removing or archiving other editors' talk page comments until things simmer down a bit. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool! 842U (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminder
It bears repeating, an article Talk page is neither a forum nor a social media site; see Not A Forum. It is disruptive for editors to use a talk page for insider, personal, or private communication (e.g., here and here -- or any of the six other instances just rmv'd from this page). 842U (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies - forgot the first rule of social media Don't feed the troll Marj (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. 842U is a well-respected editor, certainly not a troll.  It's time to stop bickering, and settle this issue like the responsible editors you both are.  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is possible for an editor with a excellent history of productive, important edits to begin adding information to an article for the sole purpose of harassing another editor with whom they had had a three year history of acrimonious exchanges of opinion over another article. As evidence I would point out that while the material being added here (by an editor who has contributed no other information) says that the Australian Cattle Dog is the world's tenth most dangerous dog, there has been no interest in adding this supposedly important information to the articles dealing with breeds one to nine on the list. Marj (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel you are being wikihounded, please follow the correct procedures to deal with it. Personal attacks are certainly not a productive route to take in such matters.  842U's insertions seem reasonable, and the references he uses are certainly considered reliable.  As I stated earlier, an RfC seems like the appropriate path to take at this point to resolve your differences.  Ebikeguy (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that several of other breed articles are fairly obvious about aggression issues with their respective breeds. The Pit Bull and Rottweiler articles, for example, have prominent mention of dangers associated with the breed. The Rottweiler article has a paragraph listing various statistics regarding the breed's aggressiveness/attacks/danger.  The Chow Chow article already mentions it's a 'high-risk' breed. A reader doesn't come away from those articles having overlooked a salient aspect of the breed, as with this article.  And yet instances of reliable sources outlining the issues with ACD danger/aggression are very easy to find, especially in Australia and New Zealand where the breed is common. 842U (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And the 6th most dangerous breed in the world has nothing in its article. The ferocious greyhound injured a grand total of one person in a 27 year period, clearly a public danger. You have very easy to find reliable sources? I can't wait to see them.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The newly added subsection on aggression does have good references but its introduction causes some problems with the article, namely
 * there is redundant information repeating itself again and again throughout the article. I reduced it to a mention in the lede but the parent section on Australian Cattle Dog needs work to delete mention of agression there. No need to have it mentioned in every section because that is clearly not NPOV.
 * the subsection on aggression is quite large and I'd like to see this reduced down to a more reasonable size.


 * Regarding the editors who object to no mention of aggression in dogs found to be more aggressive, it seems that the correct fix would be to mention it there. Actually, statistics on aggression by breed might be of interest to a lot of readers and we should put some objective thought into how these data could be best incorporated into our encyclopedia. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Marj brought up the point to show that the user is here because they were stalking her edits. I brought up the greyhound example to show that the article is worthless as a source. No one is actually objecting to those info being missing from other articles.--Dodo bird (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as we're conjecturing about motives, I'm not following this but I suppose it's obliquely related... and not civil, not intended genuinely... and possibly intended to harrass.842U (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Question for the Experts
The article, as it stands, states that aggressive traits are being bred out of the breed, but it does not give any specfic information as to how potential owners can maximize the chance that they will get a puppy that has been bred to minimize aggressive tendencies. Are there any RS references available that discuss this issue? If so, I'd like to see them added to the article, with related language. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess Dodo's last edit answers my question. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Weight, emphasis and subsection
Finding the correct weight and emphasis for the Aggression facts is tricky. The information keeps getting taken out of its own sub-section and absorbed into the article. The precedence for the information having it's own sub-section, however, is already set within the article, which has dedicated sub-sections for Coat and Colour, Tail, Activities, Grooming etc. The current Aggression sub-section is less than half the size of the Coat and Colour sub-section, is far smaller than the Activities sub-section, and is roughly equal to the size of the Tail sub-section &mdash; with twice as many references. It could be argued that a sub-section on breed associated Aggression is more important that breed-associated Tail characteristics &mdash; so I'm guessing the current size and emphasis of the sub-section should suffice. 842U (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I could go either way on this separate subsection debate. Let's see what editor consensus says.  In terms of the amount of space we dedicate to the subject of aggression, I think we are still in the right ballpark.  Ebikeguy (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from using the a priori precedent in the article, let's see if we can find references here on WP about when to use subsections. Rather than reverting this over and over, I advise that we leave the subsection for now and build a re-build consensus &mdash; that is, aside from the existing de facto consensus already demonstrated in the article as to the level of importance (not very much) a subject needs to have its own subsection, e.g., Tail... or the relative volume (not very much) of the information that gets its own subsection, e.g. Size which is a the shortest subsection in the article... though it nips at the heels of Grooming which is also quite slight.  Given that the article is a Featured Article, both of these precedents might serve well in this instance.842U (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked for a WP reference on subsections, but the only thing I could find was the related template. The tag only refers to section length, stating that overly-long sections should be divided into shorter subsections.  Clearly, this section is not overly long.  However, you'd think that there would be other reasons to introduce subsections, related to splitting out an important component of the overall section topic.  I have not been able to find any specific wikiguidance on this idea, though.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, Merriam Webster defines Subsection as a "a subdivision or a subordinate division of a section"

Straw Poll on Aggression
Do you Support a separate subsection on the ACD's aggressive tendencies, or do you Oppose such a subsection, in favor of making this information an untitled part of the "Temperament" section? Ebikeguy (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I could go either way on this, but it would be good to understand the current state of editor consensus. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Favor having Subsection - I'm researching now the guidelines on when to subsection, but haven't found them yet. In the meantime, I'm use the article's current state as a template.  The article has a clear precedent of giving subsections generously, to groups of information that are even much smaller than the Aggression grouping of information and to groupings of information that are arguably of far less significance than the Aggression grouping of information, e.g., Tail, Coat & Colour etc.  All of the information within the Aggression grouping does address one single type of behavior, Temperament being a broad spectrum of manners of behavior.  Thus, Aggression meets the criteria which defines "subsection."  As well, the Aggression grouping contrasts the information in the main Temperament section, which covers many manners of behavior without developing any to particular depth.  It could be argued that the Temperament section deserves two subsections: dog on dog as well as dog on human aggression. Furthermore, can an article, in the interest of NPOV distinguish TAIL and GROOMING and ACTIVITIES with subsections while not subsectioning AGGRESSION?  I would say not. 842U (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was purely a matter of style, I wouldn't care. But attempts to artificially force a heading is splitting up info that should go together. And despite multiple attempts at rearranging the information, the same problem still exist. So No.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have to disagree with Dodo bird (whose recent edits I nevertheless admire). Maybe if I were presented with specific examples I would change my mind but as it stands now I like the article's current organization. I also would like to point out that having a subsection earns a spot in the Contents box so readers who are interested in specific aspects of the ACD can quickly locate the information they need. Sprinkling the information on aggression throughout the article does our readers a disservice. That being said, I am not strongly attached to the specific heading title and I believe in some circles dog aggression refers specifically to dog-directed aggression. Peace, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 12:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Heel nipping is mentioned both sides of the subsection. Before the subsection, you have mention of it biting if treated harshly, a direct mention of aggression and claims of the dog being a "dangerous opponent" with "powerful jaw". It is in no way accurate to claim the information was scattered throughout the article. They were all contained in a 1 1/2 paragraph section. Temperament is pretty specific. That section isn't even more than one screen length long. I see little value in having a subsection for navigational convenience. My patience with 842U's tendentious editing is running out. I'm going to second Marj's claim of trolling behaviour. As a side note, to claim credit for "improvements" to the article is perhaps unsurprising. But that's like the primordial soup claiming credit for the moon landing.--Dodo bird (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Heel nipping is much more a herding instinct than an aggressive instinct. Yes, it is undesirable, but the topic should be moved to the training section.  I tried to do that, but I mucked up the refs.  I'll try again later, unless someone beats me to it.Ebikeguy (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to including this sub-section on aggression for the following reasons:
 * It does not reflect majority opinion on the breed characteristics, and where minority reports contradict the expert opinion given in cattle dog breed books and dog breed encyclopaedias that should be indicated.
 * The sources cited in this section are not authoritative The Sam Stalls book contains several factual errors such as the dog coming from "the outback" when its origins are Sydney and the nearby Hunter Valley. The Don Burke reference is a television gardening program that has been off the air since 2004.
 * It is not cohesive lumping together normal herding behaviour, protective or defensive behaviour, and aggression.
 * Aggression is oversimplified. It is a complex issue and labelling some dogs as aggressive or dangerous does not adequately address the concern. First, controlled experiments on dog aggression are giving different information from old studies based on bite reports. For example, a study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour used a group of seventy Golden Retrievers as a control group and compared the responses of 415 representatives of dog breeds considered dangerous to a set of standardised aggression tests. They found no generalizable patterns within breeds or between Golden Retrievers and “dangerous” breeds. Second, the Centre for Disease Control says that “studies that indict particular breeds are unreliable.” They stopped tabulating dog bites by breed over ten years ago. Third, the National Canine Research Council says that “bite numbers are not an accurate representation of canine aggression”. NCRC Marj (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While Burke's Backyard went off a regular schedule in 2004, it continued to feature programs through 2007 and still maintains a prominent online presence and publishes a magazine. Don Burke is alive and well, having been promoted to the Order of Australia in 2010.
 * Hi Marj, Am I reading your comments correctly in my understanding that you are not only opposed to a separate subsection, but also opposed to including the language in the current "Aggression" subsection? If I am understanding you correctly, I would say that you make a good case for not having a separate subsection.  However, I think the references in the current subsecton meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources and should therefore be kept.  Remember, it is verifiability, not truth that dictates whether material is allowed.  That said, if you can find counterarguments from other reliable sources, you are welcome to add them to show that not everyone agrees with the original references.  Ebikeguy (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To that end, I've gone ahead and included the CDC and NCRC counterargument information in the article; they just need citations.842U (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you also add 'citation needed' to the statement that Burke's program is 'noted' - I can find no such description of it anywhere. Marj (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement "Data from six municipalities in Victoria shows them responsible for 90 of 700 attacks (13%) in a 3 year period." also needs qualification to explain that the figures are more than a decade old and the authors state that "breed specific bite statistics are generally flawed" before giving the statistics. The sentence fraudulently suggests these are current, uncontested statistics.Marj (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of balance. Even verifiable information added in an ad hoc manner can distort an article's accuracy. Marj (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with those numbers. It's just that it does not prove that the ACD are more dangerous than the average dog. If ACD makes up 20% of the general dog population, that would mean they are safer than the average dog, If they make up 10%, they would be more dangerous. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with any numbers - the problem is always in how they are used. How could you ever know what percentage of the dog population of an area is one breed or another? Marj (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't. Do you think the stats are used to present the breed as more aggressive/dangerous? The original insertion has language that does that, but I don't think the current version does. They are used to show that ACDs are responsible for X% of attacks in location Y and nothing more. I know the numbers have no purpose other than that, but I still think it is a relevant piece of info. --Dodo bird (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are so many factors involved in dog aggression (chained dogs are twice as likely to attack as free roaming dogs, isolated un-socialised dogs, dogs owned by males convicted of a crime, male dogs, un-desexed dogs, dogs that are frightened or in pain, and so on) that I am opposed to linking two factors (breed and biting) as cause and effect and ignoring all other variables. In addition the Watson paper says "Cattle dog types included Heeler, Cattle dog and Kelpie" that might be Australian Shepherd, Koolie, Australian Stumpy Tailed Cattle Dog, and the Kelpie - five completely different breeds. Marj (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't see it as a claim of a link between breed and biting. The Watson paper discusses multiple data sets, your quote was for the 2001 data for NSW.(Later NSW data uses ACD and only includes Red/Blue Heeler, and Smithfield Cattle Dog.) The number we are using from Watson is the Victoria data from 1997-1999. It only states "Cattle Dog", so is possible that it includes more than ACD. --Dodo bird (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a link between breed and biting either - the link is being made here, not in the data, that is my point. Marj (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Per WP guidelines: "as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." See: Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

Breed-specific legislation
The Breed-specific legislation(BSL) article shows that despite five Australian states having BSLs, non have the ACD on their list. A casual google search found some comments on the ACD being on some BSLs, but I can't find any hard info. Maybe some of you with better google-fu can do better.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"One of the breeds more likely to bite people than others"
The original text inserted states
 * "The ACD has also been identified as a breed more likely to bite people than other breeds"

This line was referenced to this book which itself references a Burke's Backyard factsheet. The quote from the factsheet states:
 * "The NSW government's research also found certain breeds of dogs are more likely to bite people than others. These breeds are Australian Cattle Dog, German Shepherd, Bull Terrier types and Rottweiler."

This is consistent with the addition, but note that BB is still one step from the actual source. I believe this is the actual source. If you read it, you will notice that the report is mainly data, with no analysis of the info and BB's claim is purely their interpretation of the data. The four breeds being point out merely tops the table (page 7) in terms of total attacks and breeds with similar or higher attack rates such as Mastiff and Bull Mastiff, Siberian Husky, Malamute, Ridgebacks and Greyhounds should have been in the factsheet if they wanted to present breeds that are more likely to bite. Regardless attempts to use bite rates in that report to paint breeds as more likely to attack has been criticized.
 * The data do not warrant such interpretation, as a number of serious uncertainties and inaccuracies are involved [...] The greatest ﬂaw in this odds calculation is that not all dogs in the state, whether they bite or not, are registered [...] Using the registered breed populations as the overall breed populations for the denominator to calculate breeds’ attack rates lacks validity. Such a calculation assumes that each breed has the same proportion of registered and unregistered individuals, which almost certainly is not the case.

I think the source is of poor enough quality that we should just ignore it rather than report both the claims and its criticism.

I'm curious why the BB article was not used directly when it was already present as a reference. Does a book source make it appear more legit? The book actually made no comment on the information quoted, but it did mention on the same page that "Australian breeds such as sheep dogs and cattle dogs are prone to biting although they are not so prone to the dangerous attacks associated with Rottweilers, Dobermans, Pit Bull terriers and German Shepherds." I don't know if the book is a reliable source for such a claim, but wonder how a neutral editor whose purpose is to improve the article rather than push a POV can choose to use the book as a source but ignore this information.Dodo bird (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the latest NSW report, still uses the same invalid calculations, but they actually sorted by attack rates. ACD ranked around 10-15 when sorted by attack rates but still in top 5 by raw numbers. Given that Burke's Backyard's interpretation of the data is wrong, should their advice to avoid the breed stay in the article? --Dodo bird (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If we don't consider it a reliable source then IMO we can't include it. Dave  (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is an inaccurate interpretation by a person with no expertise in dogs or statistics it would be wrong to include it. Marj (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection Requested
All,

In response to ongoing edit warring, I have requested full page protection on a temporary basis, until the RfC outcome is clear. Please try edit in a responsible and civil manner until this debate is settled. Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As over 700 editors have edited in a responsible and civil manner for a period of six years, it is fairly easy to identify the source of the current disruption. Marj (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Marj. It probably would be good to reiterate my and Ebikeguy's feedback from earlier.  The outright attacks need to stop and even the thinly veiled insinuations need to stop... here, on my talk page, on your talk page; everywhere. As much as you might say you know "the" source of the problems here, it's probably sourced from more than one direction -- as has been pointed out, there's behavior on many parts that's not perfect.  But we each have enough of a track record on Wikipedia that speaks toward our ability to be constructive and collaborative.  Though you and I have sparred before, when you keep attacking and insinuating the very worst, it's discouraging, it creates an environment of hostility, and it's seriously not helping your case. Nothing can get better, the edit warring can't recede and the hard work of integrating the Aggression issue into the article can't proceed collaboratively &mdash; until the attacks stop.  Of the seven hundred editors that have worked on this article, it's clear who the number one editor really is; the numbers don't lie. You've largely created the article, championed the article... and it seems now that you're protecting it.  But articles change and grow &mdash; with or without their number one contributor. The article currently is great, but it also, in my opinion, reads somewhat like an AKC breed judging handbook &mdash; which this isn't. The article doesn't really step outside the world of the breed to shed anything approaching a critical light on its subject. And there is ample, salient criticism of the ADC.  I have said that I'm willing to work on creating a section that addresses the ADC-related aggression issue in an even handed manner, that balances the issue itself enough to allow the controversy its place in the article.  I'm not willing to make it seem as if the breed is just eager, intelligent with a slight nipping problem.  But, either way, in order for this situation to resolve and move forward, the attacks and insinuations have to stop.842U (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bite Statistics and Breed Labelling
I would argue against using bite statistics to support claims of aggressive tendencies in a particular breed for the following reasons.


 * Dog Bites and "Statistics" National Canine Research Council, LLC. What is a Dog Bite
 * ...bite numbers are not an accurate representation of canine aggression. Like the term ‘dog bite’, which is used to describe a wide range of types of animal exposures, ‘canine aggression’ is a general term applied to range of different, specific behaviors.
 * Bite totals become even more misleading when subdivided by breed descriptors. At least half of the dogs in the United States are mixed breed dogs. It is impossible to breed label dogs of unknown history and genetics solely on the basis of their appearance.
 * Even if visual breed identifications were accurate, dog bite totals still would not provide evidence that some breeds or groups of dogs bit more frequently than others. Breed populations within a given jurisdiction are not known. Therefore, incident rates cannot be calculated with any accuracy. Further, on the basis of samples obtained from veterinary clinics, animal shelters, and dog licensing, we can conclude that the popularity of types of dogs varies from place to place, and changes over time.


 * Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions Policy Paper Animals and Society Institute Janis Bradley


 * ... no credible evidence has been presented to demonstrate that any particular breeds, including Rottweilers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and American Pit Bull Terriers are overrepresented among biting dogs.


 * The data presented in support of [labelling breeds as aggressive] suffer from a lack of breed-specific population figures from which to determine proportionate representation of a particular breed among biting dogs. There also are difficulties in defining what is meant by a [breed name], difficulties in identifying individual members of the breed or group of breeds once defined, a lack of any scientifically credible evidence for any physiological traits making [one breed] more dangerous than other dogs, and difficulty differentiating between genetic tendencies toward aggression and the kind of aggression elicited by careless and inhumane husbandry practices.


 * Department of Local Government, May 2007 Council reports of dog attacks in NSW July 2004 – June 2005 Department of Local Government, May 2007
 * Care should be taken when interpreting any of the following figures. AND
 * The Australian Cattle Dog data also includes dogs that are similar or the same but identified as different breeds.


 * Report to The Nsw Department of Local Government on Breed Specific Legislation Issues Relating to Control of Dangerous Dogs July 2002 Prepared By Dr Kersti Seksel BVSc (Hons), MRCVS, MA (Hons), FACVSc, Dipl ACVB Registered Specialist in Veterinary Behaviour.
 * All breeds of dogs have a proportion of individual dogs that are aggressive towards humans. ... breed alone is a poor indicator of whether or not an animal is going to be aggressive towards humans.
 * There are three key factors that determine whether a dog will be aggressive towards humans at a particular point in time. These are:
 * 1. Genetic Predisposition. Within any dog breed a proportion of individual dogs will be genetically predisposed to aggression.
 * 2. Previous Learning Experiences. Unfortunately many dogs are exposed to a wide range of learning experiences that encourage aggressive behaviour. Some owners, either intentionally or due to lack of education, encourage the dog to be aggressive towards people.
 * 3. Current Environment. The circumstances surrounding the dog at the time of an attack on a person are a major contributing factor in why the attack occurred. Common issues are:
 * The dog is unwell or injured and needs medical attention,
 * The dog is provoked or injured in some way by the person and the response is to attack or snap at the person,
 * The dog is afraid of the person
 * The dog is anxious in the environment. Marj (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If statistics are to be used the most recent figures should be used. Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet Council, Reports of Dog Attacks in NSW 2010/11, March 2012. This report says that the pure bred Australian Cattle Dog ranked 27th in involvement in attacks, and cross bred Australian Cattle Dogs ranked 38th. This is with the usual qualifiers that "a dog attack can include any incident where a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal, whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal" so a cattle dog chasing a neighbour's cow is listed as an attack, and "Care should be taken when interpreting any of the following figures received from councils relating to reported dog attacks", and that using the register to identify breeds and registered dogs as the base population introduces results including "many more pure breed dogs were involved in attacks than cross breeds." Marj (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The ranking is based on bite rates, which is invalid.(explained above). This is the same type of stats that caused Burke's Backyard and the Daily beast to claim the breed as more dangerous. I should note that while they rank 27 the ACD bite rate in that report is 7 per 1000, twice the overall average of 3 per 1000. If the bite rate is valid, that would be be reason to claim the ACD as twice as likely to attack as an average dog. The definition of an attack is worth including.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole section explains that labelling dogs as aggressive based on bite statistics is invalid, so I'm not sure I understand your argument. I'm saying that if stats are to be used, (and I don't think they should) they should be the latest stats from the original source - not ten year old stats interpreted unscientifically by the host of a gardening program. Marj (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like we are arguing over different versions of the text. Such claims ("more likely to bite") is not in my preferred version. We are in agreement that such claims are invalid and should not be included. My preferred version includes the raw statistics of ACD making up x% of all bites. I think those are valid information and they don't imply an aggressive tendency in the breed.--Dodo bird (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you 'prefer' the May 2011 report to the March 2012. Is there a particular reason for not using the latest figures? But I agree that using broad 'attack' statistics to label dangerous breeds rather than dangerous situations, or dangerous owner practices, is an invalid use of the stats and unlikely to reduce the number of attacks - the reason the Centre for Disease Control no longer records the breed. Marj (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the latest report I found here. I'll add that number in.--Dodo bird (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Aggression
The article states that
 * "Aggression in an Australian Cattle Dog is more likely to be directed at strangers than owners or other dogs,"

but the study shows that dog directed aggression is most common. 20.6% of ACD received a score of 4(4 point scale) compared to 10.7 of dogs overall. For stranger directed aggression, 9.6% scored 4 compared to 4.7% overall. When looking at average score, the dog-directed aggression score was still higher than stranger directed aggression and both were higher than overall population average. Actually pretty much all breeds have higher dog-directed aggression than stranger-directed aggression.--Dodo bird (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure when this material was mangled - with around 700 contributors often a change will have an unnoticed flow-on effect. It has been corrected. Marj (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's possible that the article somewhat soft-peddles the nature of the breed; a while back the article was very clear in placing the breed's aggressiveness front and center, in the introduction. I have added scientific information from notable sources that rounds out the the article and contributes towards a full picture of the breed. 842U (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No you have not. The Daily Beast is not a reliable source for dangerous dogs breeds. They link to the Clifton report, itself an unreliable source(note that it is hosted on scribd and has no publisher info). They try to combine numbers in the Clifton report, which identifies breeds based on news reporting with numbers from the AKC. This obviously skews the results against breeds with large unregistered populations. For the other piece of info, you cite the Denver Channel and KETV, both of which cites the Daily Telegraph, which cites the actual study. The actual study is already cited in the body, albeit wrongly as I note above. I don't know how far back you are talking about, but neither the FA version in 2011 or the GA version from 2010 has more info on aggression. This is currently a FA, maybe we should add appropriate novel information and sources to the body and try to keep the lead as a summary. --Dodo bird (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Clifton Report includes full publisher information; a link to it is now included under External links. The last page of the article cites its credentials.  There is no problem with either of the citations; they present the source of the information as well as qualify the information.  For a second there I thought you were suggesting that the lede should include such information as the two colours of the breed's coat, it's quick intelligence and independent streak (how is that measured?) &mdash; while overlooking the well-documented danger and aggressiveness present in the breed. Frankly, it's incumbent upon the article (and especially the lede) to present the breed completely &mdash; to report the aggression while highlighting the other relatively trivial breed specifics.  Otherwise, of course, it runs the risk of appearing biased, crufty.842U (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The lede must reflect the body of the article, containing information in the same order as the article and with no information not included in the article. This article has undergone an extensive review process before being determined a "featured article" and any changes to it should undergo a similar review to maintain its quality. Marj (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember to indent per the Wikipedia guidelines. The article is obviously missing critical information.  Has there been any attempt to further research the information information that's readily accessible about the danger this breed represents and its noted aggressiveness?  You are not suggesting that "FA" status should govern the accuracy of the content, right?   Why hasn't this information been placed front and center in the body of the article?  The breed is considered "most dangerous."  How is this overlooked? Certainly if it is ok to "pad" the article with such thinly and anecdotally-sourced temperment information, such effusively positive opinion as...  "the Australian Cattle Dog is a happy, affectionate, and playful pet", then is it not vitally important to include broadly and notably sourced information on the dangerous reputation of the dog... to report the facts and have a balanced article?  Or is this a white-wash? 842U (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's overlooked because no one cares what an unreliable source says. The AABS source is already in the article. If you want to expand on it, do so. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you speak for everyone? Show me one reason we should be so quick to dismiss a study by Merritt Clifton, the editor of Animal People, listing all press accounts of dog attacks, categorized by breed, and representing a compilation of the total attacks by dogs kept as pets from 1982 to 2009 in the U.S. and Canada?  And even if the AABS source is in the article, the citation here is being used to support a the ranking of the Australian Shepard as FIFTH MOST AGGRESSIVE.  Why the interesting need to include fluffy positive breed information but leave out incredibly important information that would inform the reader as the blatantly dangerous nature of the breed?  There seems to be a lot of bias in this article.  Perhaps we should have it's FA status reviewed. 842U (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the era of breed specific legislation there is a good deal of published opinion, and the beginnings of sound research results, that indicate that 'aggression statistics' involve a number of factors, and that breed characteristics may not be as significant as the breed's level of popularity with those owners that encourage aggression in their dogs. It may be significant that the Australian Cattle Dog is a minority breed in the USA and Canada. Marj (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Australian Shepherd is a completely different breed. Marj (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are citing in the edit immediately above your last (curious) edit is your personal original research. You find it ok to argue here without citing anything to back you up. And yet you would preclude from the article transparent statistical analysis by vetted, published sources that highlight the strong possibility that a potential owner could be selecting a dangerous breed if they pick an ACD.  And even if your original research here in this discussion were perfectly sourced and supported, it would only be part of the picture.  The idea here is to give the other sides of the picture, as well.  Why leave the vetted information out of the article, and then use your own original research to defend scrubbing the article of balancing information?  I thought the FA invitation at the top of this page was to improve the article?  You seem to be using the FA status to keep from introducing new information. I came across the article suggesting the breed was dangerous, and then quickly and easily found many others.  The Daily Telegraph can report about the ACD as the fifth most aggressive breed, but their sources aren't good enough for this article??? So far there seems to be a curiously concerted effort to eliminate the "dangerous breed" information from the article. 842U (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You say above that the Australian Shepherd (a completely different breed) is the fifth most aggressive breed. Marj (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally when consensus cannot be reached, no change is made. (Consensus:In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article) Of course there are only 3 editors here so if you want to push the issue, get more eyes here. To contest FA status, you want Featured article review. --Dodo bird (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can do better than the news articles. The peer-reviewed study is good, and is in the article already. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you so desperate for negative information that you are willing to cite a news article that cites a news article that cites an academic source just to present info not found in the original source? Have a look at the actual source and try to find a ranking of breeds based on aggression. *Spoiler alert* THERE IS NONE. Try arranging the numbers yourself to see under which metrics the ACD comes fifth. I won't spoil it for you. The relevant data for ACD, I've already presented above. 20% show serious dog-directed aggression (behind akitas and JRTs) and 9.7% serious stranger directed aggression (behind dachshunds and chihuahuas). All these are stuffs that can be included (with proper weight and context), not these most aggressive, most dangerous bullshit written to sell page views. I've already explained why the first source is not reliable. --Dodo bird (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is "negative" to relay information that contributes balancing information to an article ostensibly neutral in it's point of view. The breed may be happy, affectionate, and playful... but apparently it also has a reputation for dangerousness and aggressiveness.  The article seems to neatly avoid the latter.  842U (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So expand the article with proper, legitimate sources that talks about the breed's reputation for dangerousness and aggression. What you currently have is not it. Oh, and try to find a mention of the ACD in the Telegraph article. Your news article is just some poorly written AP type shared content or press release bullshit. See the fine print in your denverchannel source, "Distributed by Internet Broadcasting" which I presume is this ad company. --Dodo bird (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when does calling "my" sources "bullshit" even begin to approach a level of civility implicit in editing here at Wikipedia? So the Daily Telegraph and Animal People are "my sources?"  They don't belong to me, but somehow there's a need to distance certain editors from these sources? So this "negative" information must be held to the very highest standard... while the puffery about the breed is allowed to skate into the article front and center.  Why isn't this "bullshit?"  Why aren't the long-time editors of the article even remotely interested in pursuing this information?  "My" sources are "bullshit," while all the other sources are... what?  It appears there could be an effort here by breed owners (COI?) to sanitize the article and promote only the positive information? What exactly is the problem with the "Animal People" citation?  Sources are given, the statistics are clear, the study appears to updated annually.  This following puffery, however, is given free reign.  What gives here? What's really behind the inclusion of such thin information:
 * The Australian Cattle Dog is a sturdy, muscular, compact dog that gives the impression of agility and strength. (unreferenced)
 * It was agreed during the review process that where all of the information in a paragraph comes from a single source, the source is to be given at the end of the paragraph - not repeated at the end of every sentence. Marj (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "the tail should feature a reasonable level of brush" What does this mean?  The article doesn't begin to describe what it means, it only asserts a vague concept.
 * "Like many working dogs, the Australian Cattle Dog has high energy levels, an active mind, and a level of independence." This is a vague, broad,and horrendously "positive" statement that seems highly anecdotal... really, how were the high energy, active mind and level of independence measured.  Or does this not matter, simply because it's positive?842U (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree we could define "brush", and that shuldn't be too hard to do. High energy levels are not necessarily positive (especially for an adult with limited time living in a small house with an active dog!!). I'm happy with the first two descriptors, and maybe could lose "active mind"....? We could probably lose " that gives the impression of agility and strength" as it is a bit fluffy I agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The term 'brush' was extensively discussed during the review process. It is an accepted term, for example a fox's tail collected during the hunt is called "the brush", Basil Brush is named for his tail, it is the term used in the standard, and the review accepted there wasn't any concise way of defining it. The breed standard also says "must convey the impression of great agility, strength and endurance." Marj (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was musing on whether/where we can link brush to - nothing on Brush (disambiguation)....Dog_anatomy? hmm.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The tail should be reasonably fluffy?" "The tail looks rather like a fox's?" Interestingly in an episode of Law and Order the bad guy had an "unusual dog" described by witnesses as having a tail like a fox - it was a cattle dog. Marj (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of dogs that are restricted or prohibited as "dangerous dogs" in many countries and a number of US states and Canadian provinces (the ACD is not on any of these lists). It would be inaccurate for this article to give greater emphasis to aggression in the ACD than is given to aggression in these breeds Dogo Argentino, American Pit Bull Terrier, Cane Corso ... Marj (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, as it is now, the article de-emphasizes the breed's dangerousness and emphasizes it's bushy tail and happy, affectionate, eager temperment. What's up with that? 842U (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be the result of none of the extensive, authoritative, references describing the breed as dangerous. Marj (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the citations introduced by 842U clearly meet the criteria for reliable sources, this issue merits an RfC. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Try the reliable noticeboard first.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC).
 * You are welcome to post the refs at the RS noticeboard, but I am very confident that they would be overwhelmingly approved if you did. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll settle for a "no consensus" on this, it's up to those who want inclusion to seek a larger audience in order to establish consensus.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's going to be an RfC, it should consider a broad range of information that sheds light on the temperament of ACD:
 * The 2005 book The Good, The Bad and the Furry, by Edwin Sayres, President of the ASPCA, said the Australian Cattle Dog, because of "its powerful jaws make it a very dangerous opponent, it should always be leashed in public."
 * Widespread leash laws that require all dogs to be leashed in public, make the inclusion of this rather pointless. In any case Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and advice on what ACD owner should do are not appropriate. Marj (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In his 2007 book The Australian Cattle Dog, noted canine author Richard Beauchamp described the breed's temperament: "left to his own devices, the Australian Cattle Dog is apt to make all kinds of decisions on its own. Who he will like, who he will not, who should be protected and with what degree of aggressiveness, who belongs and who does not. All of these things that may be considered cute in young puppies are definitely not so in an adult. In fact, left unchecked, decisions of this nature can be worrisome to the owner and others, if not downright dangerous," adding that "Cattle dogs have an inborn desire to chase and nip at the heels -- again, cute as puppies, extremely dangerous as adults."
 * Is was already in the article that the ACD was bred to bite and was likely to herd children, particularly young children who run and squeal. Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In 2006, Burke's Backyard, the noted Australian gardening and lifestyle television program, recommended five dog breeds be avoided, including the Australian Cattle Dog. Research by the New South Wales (NSW) government supported the programs recommendation.
 * There is no evidence to support describing Burke's Backyard as noted. It was cancelled by network, against Burke's wishes (he appeared on a current affairs program to complain) and popular discussion at the time shows no support for the program or it's host. As a gardener, grevillea breeder and environmentalist he did an extensive amount of good - as a 'dog expert' not so much Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Burke's Backyard factsheet on the Australian Cattle Dog Don Burke heads the article with Recommended for active families and illustrates the article with two children hugging their ACDs.Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Australian broadsheet The Age reported that "The NSW government's research also found that certain breeds of dogs are more likely to bite people than others. These breeds are the Australian Cattle Dog, German Shepheard, Bull Terrier types and the Rottweiler. These results support the Burke's Backyard story earlier this year where the five breeds of dogs it recommends to avoid were: the Australian Cattle Dog, Bull Terrier, Doberman, German Shepherd, and Rottweiler.  Our statistics showed that these breeds were responsible for 75% of dog bites in Australia."
 * This is from the same press release as the Burke's Backyard piece. If you think the statistics are worth reporting then report them accurately don't pretend that they are current, use the original source not media interpretations, or better yet use the 2012 statistics from the same source. Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In 2001, the New South Wales media release cited cattle dog types at 7 per cent of all dog bites, where breeds could be identified."


 * Burke's Backyard says because ACD's had been bred with genetic disposition to bite, it recommends the behavior be bred out, as the dogs are used now almost only as pets. Certain breeders are actively involved in selecting dogs with safer temperaments and Burke's Backyard will only recommend strains of ACD's from certain breeders.
 * The article already said clearly and precisely that Australian Cattle Dogs were bred to bite. Burke's recommendation is not current information as you pretend. The population of Australian Cattle Dogs has changed significantly over time from working dog to family pet and for more than a decade the dogs have been bred for temperament, not herding ability.Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Data collected by the Gold Coast City Council (Queensland, Australia) cited as second on the list of breeds, the Australian Cattle Dog, as responsible for 20% of 163 dog attacks between July 2000 to June 2001. In 1998, the Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare reported the ACD as second most predominant of breeds involved in dog bites.
 * Again, decade old statistics - if you must use statistics to describe aggressive tendencies of a particular breed, (although the Centre for Disease Control no longer records the breed as it is the least significant factor in dog attacks) then at least use the most recent statistics. Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the NSW Dog Attack Registry placed the Australian Cattle Dog second in breeds most likely to attack, responsible for 156 of 666 attacks.
 * Why don't use you use the original Local Government Reports instead of news media interpretations? Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In 2010, Sydney radio station 2UE, reported the ACD as Sydney's second most dangerous dog breed.
 * Another news interpretation of the same press release. Marj (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In 2010, the Daily Beast reported that the Australian Cattle Dog ranked tenth in ranking of "The World's Most Dangerous Dogs", based on a report compiled by Merritt Clifton, the editor of Animal People, listing all press accounts of dog attacks, categorized by breed, and representing a compilation of the total attacks by dogs kept as pets from 1982 to 2009 in the U.S. and Canada.
 * How on earth can a study of newspaper reports of attacks in the US and Canada determine the world's most dangerous breeds. Leaving aside newsworthniness criteria that determine which attacks will be covered, Wikipedia is not so Americentric that the rest of the worl'd experiences count for nothing. Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In 2008, The Daily Telegraph reported on a study published in Applied Animal Behavior Science by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania that studied 6,000 dog and ranked 33 breeds were ranked on their aggression. The Australian Cattle Dog ranked as the fifth most aggressive breed.
 * Again, why don't you cite the research article, rather than Denver's Channel 7 report on the research as interpreted by The Daily Telegraph? Marj (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

section break

 * Lol. Still hanging on to those two sources? Great that we have new sources. Now you can state what specific info you want to include in the article and based on which source.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that there are sufficient sources linking this breed to aggressive behavior to merit inclusion of such behavioral tendencies in this article. At this point, an RfC really should not be necessary, but it may be the only way to convince the editors against such inclusion that the material should be included.  Ebikeguy (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So far the actual content that has been rejected are info referenced to the last two sources in this list. No one is rejecting info on aggressive behavior in the breed just because. Just like in any other breeds, there is no reliable information breaking down attack rates by breeds. You have numbers like ACD making up 7% of attacks in one area and 20% of attacks in another, but without knowing the base population of dogs that are ACDs, those numbers don't really prove that the breed is more or less aggressive than average. Of course they still might be worth including with proper context. There have been attempts to get an attack rate by comparing those numbers with the Australian Kennel Club government registration numbers but those really aren't worth much either. As this review article(full text available if you google it) on Breed Specific Legislation published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior explains "Using the registered breed populations as the overall breed populations for the denominator to calculate breeds’ attack rates lacks validity. Such a calculation assumes that each breed has the same proportion of registered and unregistered individuals, which almost certainly is not the case." This is exactly (one of) the reason why the Daily Beast article is such nonsense. The Denver Channel article is nonsense because as I have already explained earlier, you will not find the claim of the ACD being the fifth most aggressive breed in either the Telegraph article or the AABS article.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The concerted focus on the two citations is to somewhat to miss the point; these are notable sources. Here is the real point: the introduction to the article has stated outright that the breed was "not aggressive,"  when this could not have been further from the truth. This is bad enough with a dog breed that has a strong dangerous side, but is somewhat an egregious error for a featured article &mdash; that is theoretically to reflect an especially vetted level of expertise and neutrality. In fact, the Australian Cattle Dog is a breed whose raison'd etre was, until recently, highly reliant on purpose-directed aggression &mdash; and while aggressiveness still characterizes the breed, the trait is being gradually and selectively bred out to accommodate its new role as a household pet. 842U (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite good editing by Djkernen, the Aggression section is still way too long. I don't see where this issue would merit more than one or two sentences before it would be considered to have undo weight in the article. I can try to pare down the recent additions today or tomorrow, but I am quite confident that there are highly-knowledgeable editors reviewing this page who could do a better job than I could. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; I'll continue work to make the section more concise, also. A part of the suggestion that the aggression section is npov or undue in weight stems from an overtly stated idea that the breed's aggression is a negative; it's not a negative.  Cattle drivers and cowboys look for a serious working dog that can herd dangerous livestock without the benefit of human instruction.  The aggression and biting behavior of the breed are core assets as a working breed.  And ACD's remain working as well as companion dogs.842U (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you folks checked out the American Pit Bull Terrier and Pit bull pages? I think the first glosses over the breed's reputation while the second focuses on it. I think it's sloppy but it still might be illustrative. Maybe we can have a reduced section on aggression but a separate page devoted to ACD aggression and a "main article" pointer on the ACD page? IMO it seems a shame to throw away all that text but it's just too much for a general article on ACD. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 18:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great idea! It seems like a main page on breed-related aggression that expounds on the related controversies might well be useful. In the meantime, I've adjusted the copy in the main article for concision, keeping the references. 842U (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm liking the way it looks at this point. Nice work!  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the wording, but I'd prefer the references not be removed. There's a salient aspect also, that the dogs can be dangerous, which had been well-referenced, but is now watered down to the point of absense.  The study in the US would suggest the qualification that danger only exists where the breed is prominent is somewhat misleading given all the references.842U (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And in a situation like this, where an arguably critical section about a breed's aggressive temperment is curtailed for purposes of concision and deference to its proper weight in the article, how then do we explain that the article's Appearance section has three subsections and it's Pets sections has three similar sub-paragraphs? Might these sections perhaps not warrant  similiar concision? 842U (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? They are duplicates. "Can be" is quite meaningless. Which of the references you presented shows that the ACD is overrepresented in attack stats? They are all just based on total numbers. The review article I posted up there has a section on attack rates but as already stated those rates are not valid. The only evidence that ACDs are more aggressive than average is the survey from the AABS source.--Dodo bird (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

842U, I see your point, but I think the section, as it stands, paints an accurate and fairly complete picture of the breeds aggressive tendencies. I must respectfully disagree with your statement, "There's a salient aspect also, that the dogs can be dangerous, which had been well-referenced, but is now watered down to the point of absense." I think the warning in the article as written is clear and adequately prominent. If you wanted to replace one of the current refs with one that had more world-wide implications, or even re-insert one of the refs that has been deleted, I'd have no problem with that, but I don't think we should take it further than that. The aggression issue seems to be fairly simple and clear-cut. The breed either tends toward aggressive behavior or it doesn't. I think the article clearly states that it does. Appearance and other issues are more subtle and therefore merit more text.Ebikeguy (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring
If the edit warring over the "Aggression" section continues, I will report the whole matter to ANI, as I was recommended to do when I requested page protection. We've gone well beyond the point where the 3-reverts-in-24-hours rule is the only governing policy on this. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to revert 842U's changes again, to this version. There is for now, nowhere close to consensus for the inclusion of the header. The header version splits up text that should go together (as I noted in Talk:Australian Cattle Dog). 842U's changes includes some new additions and also some older ones that I've previously removed for wp:weight issues. If those are considered valid inclusions, they should be added to the no header version, not added by reversion to the header version.
 * To be clear, I am reverting purely because of the header, not on content addition. That said, I disagree with the additions. The claim of "controversy", reference to Breed Specific Legislation and the use of generic criticism of bite statistics is original research and/or synthesis. There is direct criticism of the NSW data that can be used. I can find no source that talk about BLS in the ACD.(Talk:Australian_Cattle_Dog). Why "more likely to bite people than others" is false, I have explained at Talk:Australian_Cattle_Dog. --Dodo bird (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I will reinstate the content and remind you that the subsection was just approved by a third party editor from the Manual of Style page and that the way to resolve differences over the reliable sources is to find more of them, not to delete what's there.842U (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That editor has no special authority to approve anything. You still need consensus. "the way to resolve differences over the reliable sources is to find more of them" I don't know what that means. If the reliability of a source is questioned, we discuss the source. --Dodo bird (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no point in having this conversation. As Ebikeguy pointed out, we've gone well beyond the point where the 3-reverts-in-24-hours rule is the only governing policy on this. I'm not leaving for one week, and will return when cooler heads and third parties can mediate.842U (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I filed | this ANI notice before I leave for vacation tomorrow. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be advisable for both editors involved in the alleged edit warring to stop editing the article in the short term. Marj (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In an attempt to stop the edit war, I've restored most of the disputed info added by 842U and tagged them accordingly. The "sources" keep getting reposted as evidence for aggression deserving focus in the article but there is barely any attempt to defend the criticism of individual sources. This is some bizarre "opposite world" where changes that are contested default to being kept when there is no consensus.--Dodo bird (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeh! I myself need some time to breathe. Marj (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cattle Dog's Tail
842U repeatedly uses having a sub-section on the dog's tail as justifying having a section on aggression. However the tail is significantly different from the tail of other dogs and is specifically mentioned in the breed standard. It is used as an identifier by those unfamiliar with the breed such as in an episode of Law and Order where an Australian Cattle Dog was described as an "unusual dog" with "a tail like a fox". Aggression in the Australian Cattle Dog is not significantly different from aggression in other working breeds, and recent research shows that the breed of the dog is not the most significant factor in aggression, just the easiest to record. Marj (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately there aren't clear directives on how to and when to use a section or a sub-section. Subsections don't just cut information into bite sizes, they give information salience. And I understand that since the article has never included any of the notable sources specifically addressing the breed's aggression, that this is a rude awakening.  Relative to the issue of Australian Cattle Dog aggression, I'll let the notable sources speak for themselves, and I'll go out on a limb and suggest we all do. Clearly, I am not the only one who finds them credible. Perhaps the best way to serve the reader is flesh out a section or sub-section with information that informs both sides of the controversy as it pertains to this breed.  But yes, that the Tail section is so fluffy and salient it is for me an analogy of (1 of 5 points I have on) why ACD aggression deserves its own section -- that it's not ok to expound and give salience to an aspect of the breed that's harmless while locking out or subjugating an issue that is far from harmless.842U (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The brush is mentioned as part of the breed standard but for years this breed has been selected for herding and nipping comes with that territory. So in a way the breed's biting tendencies are part of a de facto standard. I agree wholeheartedly with the many posters who argue that breed is not a predictor of aggression but I also have to acknowledge that when a breed has been selected for specific traits then those traits tend to stick around even after they are no longer considered desirable in the breed. Prospective owners may be among our readers and many of these owners will not have the skills necessary to deal with a dog that requires thorough socializing and consistent discipline. If we have reliable sources then we need to include the information and the entire article -- including but not only those sections dealing with temperament and aggression -- needs to be NPOV. That means present the information, present the arguments against using breed as a predictor of aggression, link to relevant related articles where applicable, and let the reader have access to all information so that s/he can reach an informed opinion. However, that being said, I don't think the section on aggression should be very long or be given undue prominence. If an editor feels our encyclopedia needs to include more information on this topic there are other pages specifically devoted to dog attacks on humans. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The importance of the tail information is more because of the US practice of docking the Cattle Dog's tail and the increasing condemnation of docking by groups like the RSPCA, and the public debate surrounding legislation banning tail docking in a number of countries. 842U is seeking to trivialize the section by discussing only the bushiness. Marj (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For the last twenty years the breed has primarily been bred as a pet, and not selected for strong herding characteristics. And few cattlemen now have the untamed unfenced stock that the ACD was originally bred to handle and need a gentler herding dog, in any case. Kersti Seksel points out that breed characteristics can be turned around in a decade, citing the Doberman's transformation from vicious guard dog to fun family pet. Marj (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Recent edits by Canis5855 seem to have undone a lot of hard, consensus building work on this article in minimizing and obscuring the language regarding the breed's aggressiveness. I won't start an edit war by reverting, but I suggest that once the RfC concludes, which should be soon, that editors coalesce around a version that is somewhere in between what we see now and one with a full-blown, multi-paragraph section dedicated to aggression. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see that we came anywhere near a consensus, it was still out and out war when you left for your holiday. I still don't think bite statistics should be used but if they are going to be used then there should be a qualifier, preferably as a note not cluttering up the text. And at least what is there now uses authoritative sources. I would certainly oppose a "full-blown, multi-paragraph section dedicated to aggression" for a breed that does not appear in any dangerous dog legislation around the world. And there are a number of arguments above against having a single sub-section in the temperament section. Marj (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the removal of the sentences I tagged in the version I last edited. There was no consensus for inclusion of these bits in the first place. No consensus defaults to no inclusion.
 * Like I mentioned in the previous section (and tagged in the article), using generic criticism of bite stats is WP:OR and WP:SYN. I don't think footnotes are exempt from these guidelines/policy. The 9-12% figure is not the % of ACD involved in all attacks but only the % of ACD involved in attacks by purebreeds. I attempted to correct them in this edit but the recent edits removed the correction. The edits also removed the reference to the 2011/12 report, leaving only 5 years of data rather than 6. That should be reinserted or the 6 changed to 5.
 * The comments in the RFC does not support a specific section for aggression. You have stated that the sources introduced by 842U to be reliable but like 842U you have barely made any attempt to defend against the criticism of the sources.--Dodo bird (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This criticisms I have seen fall generally into three categories. 1) The reference is old (10 years), 2) There are other references that contradict it, and 3) We don't think the referenced source is correct.  In answer to the first criticism, I would say that being 10 years old does not invalidate a reference.  I am quite sure there are references on Wikipedia that are hundreds or thousands of years old.  In answer to the second criticism, I will again say that if another RS contradicts any given RS, both references should be given equal weight in the article.  Rejecting one in favor of the other is not accepted practice on Wikipedia.  In answer to the third criticism, I repeat that it is verifiability, not truth that dictates whether a reference is acceptable.  The references used by 842U have all been verifiable according to Wikipedia's definition of such.  Sincerely,  Ebikeguy (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is not the only criteria for judging a source. It must be reliable. The sources that 842U are not reliable. There is no objection to using ten year old sources. The objection was to using ten year old statistics in a way that implied they were recent when recent statistics gave different numbers. Balance is reporting divergent views in a way that reflects the published sources, not giving equal weight to the two opinions. Marj (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Leave out the the last part of the paragraph that deals with the statistics. The original reports are not specifically about the Australian Cattle Dog, the statistics are not summarised in sufficient brevity for them to be used directly, and editors cannot agree on how these statistics should be interpreted - I could argue that they should not be interpreted by editors under original research guidelines Marj (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC
This has been a great discussion about the subsection. It would be helpful to have outside comments from editors who are less invested in either side of the debate. Ebike, would you be willing to facilitate this?842U (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will try to find time to start one, but I am about to leave for a one week vacation, which will be out of internet range for the most part. I will try to get it started today.  Ebikeguy (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm doing my part here to remain cool about this, and I appreciate the support. If you could remind editors to refrain from direct personal attacks ("it's you who need consensus") the ongoing direct personal attacks, it would be good also. It's not helping. 842U (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi 842U, I really don't think that the phrase "it's you who need consensus" is a personal attack. It is an opinion about an editing issue.  It might be right, and it might be wrong, and it certainly expresses direct opposition to your previous post.  But it is not a hurled insult or invective, nor does it constitute name-calling or any other form of personal attack with which I am familiar.  Ebikeguy (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. The RfC is up.  "Society, Sports and Culture" was not a good match, but it was the best one I could find.  If anyone thinks there is a better category, please add it.  I put notices up at Wikiproject: Dogs and Wikiproject: Australia because this article is within the scope of each group.  Ebikeguy (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We haven't yet heard from most of the major editors of this article. You might canvas the opinions of Casliber, Sasata, George Ponderevo, Quadell, Jimfbleak and Miyagawa, given the blanket accusations of bias and conflict of interest in the editors. Marj (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't help feeling that 842U's disingenuous comments above are designed to cover her forum shopping until she gets an opinion that agrees with hers. Marj (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Marj, Describing another editor's comments as "disingenuous" can certainly be interpreted as a personal attack. Please stop making such comments.  Your comments on content will be much more effective without such distractions.  Thanks.  Ebikeguy (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, again, please keep the focus on the article and stop directing attacks at me... here, on my talk page or on your talk page. It's unacceptable.842U (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I apologise. Even if I am convinced that 842Us determination to emphasise aggression in the Cattle Dog is payback for my adding a criticism of the program to the Dog Whisperer article, it was wrong of me to mention it here where discussion should only be about improving this article. Marj (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I didn't know what an "ACD" was until when you introduced me to yours, it was a local four-year old girl &mdash; whose face was badly mauled this June by an ACD and is now being reconstructed through multiple surgeries by a friend who's a plastic surgeon &mdash; that led me to discover in July that the breed was on at least two salient 'most dangerous' lists, that many consider the breed dangerous and that the WP article was mute on the subject. Either way, it will certainly improve the article to remember that assumption of good faith isn't optional here and that it's a prerequisite.  842U (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the only dog attack reported in 842U's local papers this June the girl was eleven years old and the dog was the family's Jack Russell Terrier and English Bulldog cross. She was bitten on the face when she fell off the sofa onto the dog. Marj (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having been out of town, and now having the opportunity to go through the recent edits here, it's important to note that this statement is not only completely inaccurate, it is deeply disturbing to know that another editor has been, albeit inaccurately, tracking and reporting on my whereabouts.842U (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You told me the general area where you lived in an attempt to prove your 'expertise' in an unrelated discussion. mdk572 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cite your source.842U (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For information
I've been asked to have a look at what's going on here. I have no knowledge of this breed other than what's in the article, but I'm an experienced FA reviewer.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd remind everyone to be civil. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable, and editors who persistently attack others can be blocked.
 * It's obvious to everyone that edit warring here is now endemic. The best outcome is for the active participants to agree a form of words that everyone can live with.
 * My sole concern is to maintain the FA status of this article, personally I don't care whether the ACD wears a halo or eats babies for breakfast
 * To that end, if consensus can't be reached in a reasonable time, I intend to go through the article and remove anything that isn't referenced to an impeccably FA standard RS &mdash; no opinion pieces, news, or other third-hand rehashes. I'll then fully protect the article. I'll ask Casliber if he wishes to be a second opinion since he is vastly experienced at FA.
 * What I am proposing will probably upset everyone, but if you are unable to fix it yourselves, I'm prepared to do what is necessary.


 * This sounds like an eminently reasonable approach. Jim is experienced at FAs and neutral in this matter, and some form of referee is necessary here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally. The edit warring here has been childish which is why I stopped taking part in discussions here. No point in discussing anything here if it's every editor for himself on the article's page. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 12:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a welcome development -- one I'm sure that will improve the article. Thanks for all the hard work on here in negotiating obviously controversial territory.842U (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good to have someone recognise that an FA standard exists, and happy to have the original research, synthesis, selective use of sources, inconsistent referencing American spelling etc that were introduced no longer in the article. mdk572 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nitty gritty. Is there a version everyone can live with, that's obviously preferable to me just removing non-FA level text and references?  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  14:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with for Ebikeguy's last edit, without the sub-section so as to be congruous with the Rfc.
 * Having gotten lost in this some time ago, if this version is the all-round strictest WRT sourcing all round, then is probably the best place to start, and then discuss each segment to add separately afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is WRT sourcing? 842U (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By "this version," do you mean the version that 842U suggests, or the current version of the article? Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is Ebikeguys recommendation at "Move to Close" of the Rfc. I am suggesting we go back to this edit, without the subsection.842U (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the prose is better sounding in the older version. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Jim and Casliber, the refs in the version I just restored look pretty good to me, but (as previously noted) I am no expert on FA ref requirements. If either of you has the time to look them over and edit or comment, we would be greatly in your debt. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments from a referencing viewpoint only
 * The off-line resources look fine as far as it's possible to tell. Books can be partisan, but without having the sources, I assume everyone is happy
 * I don't know Burke's Backyard, but I assume it's acceptable?
 * ref 20. I'm not sure about the long quote in the reference here, but not a big deal
 * ref 14 is not acceptable in my opinion. The stated facts should be referenced to the original source, not an emotive report about a bitten child. Newspapers can be RS, but not like this.
 * On a purely technical point, capitalisation or otherwise of references seems pretty random
 *  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Burke's Backyard is a currently a magazine and online site, formerly a television series &mdash; hosted by Don Burke, who is also known as an environmental activist and was awarded Australia's Medal of the Order in 2010. There has been concern expressed about this source, in the discussion above, but fairly partisan, if that's a clear enough way to describe the concern. The information in reference 14 is available in several different sources -- I'll see about updating it to one of the others. 842U (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, Jim. I'll wait for 842U's edits, then add more, if necessary.  Ebikeguy (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Further ref stuff


 * I've reformatted ref 20 since it was inconsistent with other book refs, and was formatted as citeweb despite no web link


 * The Burke's "Dangerous Dog" ref has a very biased intro but quotes extensively from its source, better again to reference the original source rather than a partisan derivative


 * The Burke "ACD" seems more opinion, but the style is less frenzied than the other one, so may be less controversial


 * There is unreffed text after ref 58, anything controversial there?


 *  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Don Burke has strong opinions on lots of issues and needs to be taken with some caution (I recall him once becoming very annoyed with environmentalists in far north Queensland pointing out that coffee plants have invasive potential up there!) if there are peer-reviewed or government sources which form a view different to his. So I think we need to examine consensus on this. His main thing he'd be promoting with dogs was designer crossbreeds such as Cavoodles and spoodles Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the section would read just fine without the Burke refs and the associated language, but I will wait for 842U to comment before I edit them out. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I removed the Burke refs and associated language.  The Collier ref supports the associated language, "By comparing the NSW bites statistics with the number of registered pedigree dogs, the ACD has been identified as one of the breeds more likely to bite people than others" on its own, in that it uses NSW data to list the ACD as number 3 in a table titled "The leading breeds by numbers of attacks, numbers registered, and percentage of attacks by registered numbers."  Ebikeguy (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The information in the table is about "attacks" rather than bites and about all "attacks" including attacks on animals rather than just people. Collier got that last part wrong as well but you can look at the actual report yourself. "More likely to bite people than others" is a direct quote from Burke's. Collier does not support such interpretation. Here's Collier's comment re: the table: (Note that the table is straight from the report)
 * The data pertaining to the leading 5 breeds reported to be involved in attacks are presented in the Table.
 * These data have recently been used by the state minister in parliamentary debate to show that the APBT is 6 times more likely to attack than the Australian cattle dog, and to justify the legislation aimed to eventually eliminate the breed. The data do not warrant such interpretation, as a number of serious uncertainties and inaccuracies are involved [...] The greatest ﬂaw in this odds calculation is that not all dogs in the state, whether they bite or not, are registered [...] Using the registered breed populations as the overall breed populations for the denominator to calculate breeds’ attack rates lacks validity. Such a calculation assumes that each breed has the same proportion of registered and unregistered individuals, which almost certainly is not the case.
 * So the ACD wasn't actually presented as more likely to attack than "others", it was used as a baseline to show how much more dangerous the APBT supposedly is. Even then, the calculations that such claims are based on is rejected by Collier. The Burke source seems to have been rejected, so who exactly are we sourcing his claim to? --Dodo bird (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for identifying the report upon which Collier built his table.  I agree that, given the identification of the original report, the Collier reference is not the best one for this citation.  I will remove the Collier ref and replace it with a reference to the report you linked to.  I will change the language to clearly reflect the report's findings, specifically that the ACD was involved in more attacks in NSW from 2004-2005 than any other dog save the German Shepherd.  I will also note that, per the same report, the ACD is the 7th most common breed in NSW and that, on a per capita basis, the ACD is not the second-most-likely to be involved in an attack.  I agree with your suggesting that, since the Collier ref deals primarily with pit bulls, it should not be used as a citation in the ACD article.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are more up-to-date reports from 2005-2011 that can be used. The ACD is not the 7th most common breed, it is the 7th most common breed in the government's register. Saying the ACD is second in no. of attacks and 7th most common is just inviting the reader to draw the conclusion that the ACD is overrepresented. They will just be doing the invalid bite rate calculation themselves. Actually, I don't mind having that information if Collier's warning is included together with it. You can't really claim that the ACD is not the second most likely to attack on a per-population basis, because that claim is made by comparing bite rate. --Dodo bird (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have access to more recent reports, then add appropriate refs. In the meantime, I will use the perfectly valid report to which YOU posted a link. I will make sure that the language in my post corresponds correctly to the language in the report. As you stated previously, the Collier ref is not appropriate because the corresponding paper is written about a different breed. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I substituted the NSW government report for the Collier reference that cites the government report. I changed the language to reflect the language used in the government report.  I included references to the 2004-2005 data in the 2007 report as well as more recent data published by the same government agency in 2012.  Note that the data in the later report does not contradict the earlier data because the scope of the later report was far greater than the scope of the earlier report, looking at 107 breeds compared to 29 breeds in the earlier study.  Note also that the percentage of ACDs involved in attacks actually goes up in the later report, from 0.1% to 0.7%.  If any editor sees problems with the exact language or the referencing format I used in my recent edits, I encourage you to help fix the problem rather than questioning the underlying reliability of the references themselves or the overall inclusion of this data in the article.  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)