Talk:Australian Cobberdog

Life expectancy claims.
Whilst a book written by a veterinarian is a reliable source I'm skeptical about the claim still. The breed is incredibly novel which makes such data hard to obtain. Furthermore other life expectancies given in the book are contradicted by proper studies, even kennel club surveys which is a lesser reliable way of calculating life expectancy give lower numbers for some breeds than the book.

It doesn't officially list any sources but for further reading it recommends https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/dog-life-expectancy (along side other questionable sources) and I noticed that for 10 random dog breeds I selected: all of them matched for the claim given. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a very interesting point. Admittedly, I took the book at face value. I'm not certain if a more reliable study has ever taken place (they are quite novel). That being said, I'm not sure which would be the proper way of noting that: taking the life expectancy point out or qualifying it with a note on the verifiability of the source.  Dionysius Miller  talk 14:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to have any form of life expectancy that's reliable for such a novel breed. Personally I'd remove it as it's better to have no information than information that likely isn't true. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, though I would note that development started in the 90s and the current effort in the early 2000s. The breed has been registered since 2012 if I'm not mistaken.
 * To play devil's advocate: 12 years post-registration and decades after practical completion, it's not entirely unreasonable?
 * If you think otherwise then I'd agree that the life expectancy should be removed until a reliably sourced, in-depth study takes place.  Dionysius Miller  talk 20:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whilst the breed has been developed before recognition you still need a sizeable population to gather life expectancy data.
 * There's nothing in the list that indicates any research has been done and given the contradiction between the book and verified studies I'd wager it's just an estimation/kennel club listed numbers than any actual research that has been done. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

'Tabloids'
@Dionysius Miller Those sources aren't even tabloids. They lack naming of an author and any form of editorialisation or publishing. One of them is simply a breeder's personal website. Neither source meets WP:RS. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:ABOUTSELF seems applicable here in that a organization selling a different breed of dog is giving the history of said dog in a way that does not give itself undue credit or express extreme views. WP:AFFILIATE also doesn't prohibit this use case when discussing similar pages.
 * This context doesn't propose any fringe theories, claims of grandeur, or the like. The specific claim of these sources is that eight breeds went into the creation, and then a list of them is given. Listing characteristics of a product (weird word for this use case but semantically correct) that you are selling in a reasonable way is permitted so far as I'm aware. In general, the lack of reputation of these sources is not necessarily an issue in the context of their use.
 * The first source is a tabloid from a "unified" source and the second is a vendor, both of which are sometimes permissible.  Dionysius Miller  talk 22:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Except dogjournal and doodledogs aren't talking about themselves - they're discussing the history of a person and his endeavours. Dogsjournal isn't a tabloid either, just a self-published website with a bunch of generic dog articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They aren't breed clubs/associations reporting on their found either. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)