Talk:Boerboel/Archive 1

Request for head-to-tail photo
(request box removed by Boinger upon adding described photo)
 * I'll see what I can do with my Boerboel tonight boinger 22:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool!  Elf | Talk 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go: Image:LionsHeadJosieFee.jpeg. How's that work for you?  I can revise or add if you have additional suggestions.boinger 04:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! Could you crop out both sides (so get rid of most of the person & most of the furniture) and just upload again under the same photo name? Elf | Talk 16:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done and done.
 * Thanks. Elf | Talk 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

boerboelclub extract?
What's the status of the extract from boerboelclub.co.uk? We don't usually have "with permission" text and the note looks strange. If the text is submitted under the usual GFDL terms then we need to remove the quote marks and the note; if it's submitted on the condition of those staying then I think we need to remove the text compleatly and replace with free text. I hope it's the former -- sannse (talk) 17:01, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removal of my link
Well, now that I've realized Pam (Psenffner) has been editing this page, it makes a lot more sense that my link would disappear. If, however, it is someone else, please email me personally telling me why you believe my site does not offer information. If you can't explain that, please leave it up for the benefit of those looking for information on the Boerboel. It is incredibly rude to keep deleting my site from this page.

Linda Levinson Owner & Administrator, The Boerboel Blog, http://boerboel.mu.nu

translation
While literally Boer means farmer, the term connotates a cultural group in South Africa that goes way beyond just farmers. Thus, I disambiguated the name for a greater accuracy and nuance of translation. VanTucky (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Van tucks & Quadill
Quadell I had to remove your picture of the Bitch, in my opinion the other picture is much nicer, not a personal issue, but the one you are using is not a very well put together Boerboel. The hind is far to weak, not enough second thigh or muscle in general going on there, same with the top line and neck. Also the picture is a bit bleached giving the dog a rather insipid look. Possibly the dog in question is in fact a good one, but the picture is not. The picture should try and represent as good an example as possible, to give the public a better overall view and understanding about what the breed should represent. I think the one used already does this nicely, thanks Elf. Perhaps you have another bitch photo you wish to put in there instead? I am not getting embroiled in the AKC issue as it has no bearing on the Boerboel as yet, as 99% of Boerboel owners in America have decided not to register their dogs there. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as free advertising or promotion. If you wish to mention that there is some kind of very minimally used development register for the breed at the AKC, you can do so some place under the AKC Wikipedia entry perhaps. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional material about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or contributions created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with Wikipedias deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. Kind regards Frikkers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frikkers (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your talk posts with four tildes (~). The idea that the fuzzy, dark image with low-res is better because it fits one standard for the breed in your opinion is not a reason to keep the previous one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional web host for breed advocates and their standards for dogs. To take a stance otherwise would be a violation of a neutral point of view that Wikipedia ascribes to. Furthermore, do not revert to an unverified version of the rest of the article without sources and discussion. The pedigree facts now present are cited in reliable sources. You still have also not addressed the translation issue. The idea that I am inserting "promotional material" when I am not an owner, breeder or judge for this breed is absurd, to put it lightly. VanTucky  (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Images
the boerboel image that you want to use Frikkers, is of very low quality. It's fuzzy, dark and of bad composition. This is unacceptable as a lead image. The other images added provided more variables and detail of the breed, and are completely necessary. VanTucky (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedigree
To say that all boerboels are "registered at birth with one or more of the following..." is both unverified and simply untrue. Furthermore, the article present no evidence that non-South African governing bodies such as the AKC even recognize the breed. Please provide attribution for such facts in the future. VanTucky (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, evidence I have gleaned from outside sources has made it clear that the idea that boerboels could be registered with the AKC or FCI as a true breed is patently false. The South African breed registries are the only ones that recognize the breed. VanTucky (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism and subjective block editing by Van tucker
I am finding this whole Wikipedia exercise one big sham. If wikipedi is to be at all credible then people who try and lay down the law as to what, who and when an edit can take place, should actually have a firm understanding of the subject involved, otherwise it becomes no more than a subjective and irrational little game. Van tucky has repeatedly vandalised the Boerboel entry from start and it seems is not being held accountable at all. With due respect for anyone who is seriously motivated to trying to make wikipedia a credible source of information, this is unacceptable. Do we as guardians or custodians of information, or in this instance a living breed of dog have a choice in the matter. If I could I would request the entry be removed entirely, as miss information is worse than none at all. Or are we to entirely discredit Wikipedia as a source of credible information, because that is what the end result of this little edit war ends up being, as I am sure now, many others end up being too. From the very beginning of the Boerboel entry a few editors have miss represented the breed entirely at their own whims, and worse because of personal agendas involving the AKC or American Kennel club, this level of subjectivity and mistaken patriotism proffered as encyclopaedic content is damaging wikipedias image as a whole and proper information about the breed of dog concerned. It is not the place supposedly for personal agendas and bias, but worse it is not the place for administrators with no particular knowledge of a subject, to draw any conclusions, or limit editors contributions. Do I hear a clamouring for administrative know how?

Perhaps the entire concept of Wikipedia is so flawed, and I should not be wasting my time further. I had thought not, but real experience here has taught me that perhaps it is time for a rethink on the concept, it is simply too easily abused, in fact all most all its content is in serious doubt anyway. While I know Wikipedia is not a source of information that is eligible in any academic sense, it remains a worthy excersise to try and achieve such recognition, does it not? This however is surely not going to happen any time soon.

Frikkers — added by Frikkers (talk • contribs) 03:39, August 22, 2007 (UTC).


 * First, to deal with your accusation of vandalism. Vandalism, as defined here, is the deliberate attempt to disrupt and damage Wikipedia. That is obviously not my goal, and to say so is an assumption of bad faith. Second, you have repeatedly failed to address the specific concerns, for each separate content issue, and have simply reverted without participating in a discussion to create a consensus. This is how Wikipedia works. We make decisions through collaboration and consensus, and the test for inclusion of content is verifiability in reliable sources, not one person's subjective truth. By repeatedly failing to try and engage in an open, earnest process aimed towards creating a working consensus that is supported by sourcing, you have violated the basic tenents of Wikipedia. Whatever views you want to hold on the subject at hand at perfectly acceptable, but you need to work with the community at large, not against it. As to the content: Administrators, in their function as such, do not arbitrate content decisions. Including material on the AKC is not spamming or promotion, it is encyclopedic. I am not adding unrelated or inappropriate external links, but cited information about the breed's AKC status. This is perfectly relevant, especially considering Wikipedia represents a worldwide point of view on subjects. We do not write only about the South African aspects of this breed because it is of origin in that nation. VanTucky  (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Van Tucky, I hear you but I am less concerned right now with Wikipedia protocol than maintaining some semblance of fact surrounding our breed, and in order to do this I am continually having to change large incorrect block edits that you make. There is absolutely nothing relevant to the breed about the AKC edit, you should do this on the AKC site. You state in the pedigree section that "In America.....AKC" what relevance has that to do worth a South African breed of dog? Why not "In Sweden" or "In the Netherlands" you are placing importance in an issue that has no place under pedigree of the Boerboel. Also you are incorrect to state that the "In America the Boerboel is only on the development register of....." this untrue as you will see if you looked at any of the SABBA links, 90% of Boerboels in the USA are indeed registered with the SABBA. Thank you for your time and willingness to discuss, perhaps you should do this before you block edit, changing entire blocks of text is time consuming and difficult to repair, and this has to be assumed to be vandalism on your part.

Frikkers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frikkers (talk • contribs).


 * Actually, if information on the breed's status and prescence in Sweden or the Netherlands could be found, it too would be included. I'm sorry if you disagree, but all Wikipedia articles work from an international point of view, so as to maintain neutrality and comprehensiveness. This is just part of the way Wikipedia works, and isn't really arguable. As to the second part: we can clairfy it as saying that American owners may register their dogs with SABBA. But what the passage means is that the American registry recognizes the breed under the FSS, which does not preclude owners registering their dogs with any other organization. As to the statistic about how many are registered with such and such, once again you must have a verifiable source. VanTucky  (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protected for one week
I've protected the page to the most stable version I could find in the history given the recent flurry of reversions. I encourage everyone interested to discuss the differing issues in an attempt to find a consensus. Thanks -- Samir 07:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

protected for a week
Thank you Samir for trying to force some kind of consensus on this entry, however the page you decided to use is far too recent and is at the crux of the dispute. Good attempt at an unbiased approach anyway.LOL. I find it rather sad that no one has stepped forward to defend or suggest alternatives to this process that holds Wikipedia in such serious doubt. I cannot see how the information it holds can be considered of any value as it stands. Is anyone actualy following up on research to make sure of issues like I am doing, before arbituary block editing like that from Van Tucky are accepted? Or is Wikipedia protocol more imprtant than the truth/information it is meant to be representing?


 * Making fun of me when I chose not to block you for another breach of the 3RR is a decidedly unusual thing to do -- 07:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussions flowing ?
Editing a page with an issue or topic close to an organisation or person indicating a blatant conflict of interest is in direct violation of Wikipedia polices and is considered spam. It seems the site does not nor cannot ever actively search out all those who do just that and succeed in this endeavour, given the pure volume of editors. But pointing out how some organisations function in this respect has a definite validity, if for no other reason but to pin point these areas of susceptibility to assist the limited control of administrators.

Here in this entry the decisions has been left to arbitrary administration with no follow through, instead, simply reducing the flow of editorials for a given period of time, even when such blatant contravening of Wikipedia policy has been pointed out and named, in this instance Van Tucky aka the AKC, has left a biased and some what wanting entry. I have yet to hear Samir opinion on the matter of the entry itself nor on the one they choose to represent the present protected entry with, and as this not a requirement for administrators, their decision remains totally subjective?

I am hardly making fun of Samir, just trying to make sense of what Wikipedia is in fact achieving as a concept, to make up my own mind if contributing is in fact worth the time and effort needed. However, how is blocking the whole site from all editors not also blocking any single editor?

Regards Frikkers


 * The above is muddled in my mind, so it's hard for me to understand, but if you're suggesting that I have some conflict of interest with the AKC, think again. I don't even own a dog at present, and my childhood family dog was a mixed-breed dog not eligible for registry. I have disclosed my employment status in an easily verifiable fashion as well. If you look at just about any other non-American dog breed article, such as Borzoi, articles include registration/pedigree information from every available source. So the AKC, UKC, ANKC, CKC, and others are included. This is standard procedure on Wikipedia. But most importantly, per the guidlines of WP:TALK, this is not a forum for general discussion of the topic, or other topics. If you have an accusation about other users' behavior, this is not the appropriate place to discuss it. This is only for discussing improvements to th article.  VanTucky  (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky
Need I say more? frikkers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frikkers (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign all your talk posts with four tildes like this: ~
 * This is not a comment board like a blog, it is for a back and forth discussion. Simply stating your opinions and not having a conversation aimed at reaching a consensus is not an acceptable solution to the conflict. VanTucky  (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias and sublime censorship
I operate a boerboel-related website, boerboel.co.za. Firstly, I don't care if there is a link to my website on this page or not. But I am not happy with the present Wikipedia page on the Boerboel. It reads like a publicity sheet for one Boerboel organisation SABBA. I will not attempt to edit / change anything since it is clear that all edits will be changed right back to conform to a SABBA propaganda.

Under external links you will find the following entries: 1) Worldwide Boerboel links; 2) SABBA; 3) Constitution SABBA; 4) SABBA Benelux and Europe; 5) SABBA USA

SABBA, SABBA, SABBA! No reference to the open pedigree for the boerboel at http://www.boerboels.com/pedigree/pedigree.php for instance. No reference to any other Boerboel organisations website either. I object to this.

For the record: SABBA does represent more than 80% of registered boerboels worldwide. However, that is a minority of the total boerboel population where most boerboels are not registered with any authority at all. SABBA claims to be the "custodian of the South African Boerboel worldwide." This is a self-appointed title and neither SABBA nor their status is officially recognised / sanctioned by any major canine organsiation worldwide.

Since the Boerboel community is much larger than only SABBA, I object to the current state of the Wikipedia page and I am disgusted by this form of sublime censorship!

Casper.labuschagne 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are other breed-specific organizations for the boerboel, they should be linked to the article. Which links are specifically for the organization and not for a breeder or any other type of website that would constitute the Wikipedia definition of spam? These should be added. I have removed some of the excess links to SABBA. The original site and an English version are all that is necesarry per the guidelines of WP:EL. VanTucky  (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the club casper L
This appears to be the format yes. Must say I also question the validity of any of this information now. I understood the other organisations had ceased functioning, at least in any coherent manner? They were mentioned in the pedigree originally but Van Trucker et al keeps removing them and replacing them with the AKC ? Although Van tucker also admits to knowing absolutely nothing about the issue.....some sort of annoying hobby then? Its called boredom, but here it is referred to as vandalism, however no one seems sure how to adequately deal with it. Van Tucky has a pet dog not a Boerboel and knows nothing about dog breeds breeding or the history of, but still we are asked to discuss these issues with them? Sound plausible? Who knows perhaps it is here LOL?

The other organisations have not entirely ceased to function. EBBASA is still strong and has just elected a new board. There are still a core group of breeders that register through the HBSA. They still have a board and a AGM AFAIK. What I question is what is the validity of the SABBA constituition as an external link over placing an external link to the boerboel pedigree? It would have been much better to present the alternative viewpoint in addition to the SABBA view. But, it is pointless complaining about it since this page effectively presents a narrow viewpoint by design. I have stated my point and I will leave it at that.

BTW, since I run a boerboel related website on which I occasionally express strong opinions, I will not directly edit the boerboel page since my contributions will not necessarily be viewed as objective. Put in another way, I am too close to the subject...

Casper.labuschagne 09:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Casper, thank you for your concern and care to uphold our neutral point of view. But if you have helpful information to expand the article that can be cited with reliable, published sources please do not hesitate to add it. Having a conflict of interest would only discourage you from contributing to an article on yourself or your website, not on a general subject that your website covers. VanTucky (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another week
Discussion is good. I've protected for another week -- Samir 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Talks
Thank-you Samir, very helpful. Casper has a point, if there was a link to the Boerboel "pedigree" anywhere this should be restored, I personaly never saw one though. And in the first info box, there is no point in having the AKC mentioned, as it stands it looks like at a glance that is the only pedigree the dogs has got, where in fact it doesn't even have one with that organisation. Under pedigree in the info box must be the SABBA of course, and as Casper has pointed out the HBBA and the EBBA. Perhaps you will make those edits? Secondly the second picture is a terrible example of a Boerboel, it has a very weak hind and no bone to it, giving a very bad representation of this breed. This picture might be better served in a section on history of the breed or evolution of the breed, or what to avoid etc. The previous one is much better even though its the same dog as the top one from a different angle, it serves the purpose much better, as you get a good frontal image of what a Boerboel should look like.

Thirdly the SABBA USA office is still there in the final links, fair enough, but what happened to SABBA Benelux SABBA UK SABBA etc etc why is America being given such priority when it has none in reality in the world of the Boerboel, at least not internationaly?

Thirdly Casper's honesty is admirable, there is no real scope for subjective biased opinion or otherwise in an entry in Wikipedia, this is what Van tucky tries so hard but fails to understand, however there is certainly value in peoples opinions here in the discussion area, Casper Van der Merwe's included.

Van Tucky it is not plain what is to be discussed with you here, as you have already told us you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject at all. My apologies if you feel that is somehow insulting to you? Be assure it is not the intention. However dont be upset by it personaly, perhaps you have other areas of expertise that other entries might very well need?

--203.198.233.196 06:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Frikkers


 * No, there is a point in mentioning the AKC. Several in fact. First, all other articles mention a breed's status under any and all organizations, and almost all contain AKC info the infobox. This is just standard practice on Wikipedia dog breed articles. To remind you, Wikipedia is comprehensive encyclopedia with a worldwide point of view. Focusing only on the South African status of this breed in not acceptable, and will not stand as a violation of a neutral point of view on the subject. The Benelux and some other links removed were because they were not English-language, and their info is already basically covered by the parent links. As to the images. You fail to understand the basic criteria for images on Wikipedia. We adhere to a neutral point of view, and thus choose images only based on the photographic and illustrative quality so far as they are not based on subjective standards of appearance. In other words, we don't ever reject images of a dog because it doesn't fit one person's interpretation of an arbitrary breed standard. Favoring certain dogs because they adhere to a particular standard is not neutral. So to speak plainly, it matters not all if you think a dog has a "weak hind end". What does matter is that the images you prefer are extremely poor photographically, being fuzzy, dark, and ill-composed. On the personal issue. No, I did not say that I know absolutely nothing on this topic. I have in fact read much of the available SABBA english literature on the breed. I said that I am not a boerboel owner or breeder. But this is all beside the point. You fail to recognize that there are zero credentials or prior expertise required to edit on a subject. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Speaking at all of an editor's personal qualities or knowledge on a subject is off-topic and may violate WP:NPA if they are negative.  VanTucky  (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't approve of the current image, and the other image cannot be used for quality reasons, perhaps we can compromise by using the images I have placed here. This is a working boerboel bitch from South Africa. VanTucky (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

image quality
The picture on the right is not a bad one at all, but it looks like a bitch puppy, so not ideal. There is no problem with the quality of the original picture posted, it is far better, to VTucky's point quality wise, than the one replacing it with. Just to further address some of Van Tucky's points:

The pedigree in the info box is just that, it mentions the breeds pedigree status, the breed does not have a pedigree under the AKC, so why it should be mentioned there and not the SABBA which does actually hold and issue the actual pedigree of the breed is of course the point?

As far as links to the SABBA around the globe which hold the pedigree for all the regions in the world, this is of course important, as it is what gives the breed a coherent presence internationally at this time. Many people do searches in English from non English speaking countries, it is simply a common courtesy, but more importantly provides the links that serve the needs of the actual subject matter ie, the SABBA is international and holds events in all these countries.

I certainly do, following this discussion, and recognise to your point, that zero credibility or expertise are required to edit on a subject, this entry being a point in case. This makes editors with real credibility and or expertise somewhat loath to contribute, so I would suggest they be encouraged.


 * I don't like the image on the right either, so no problem there. As to including the SABBA in the infobox (that it's name, not pedigree box), the template syntax simply won't let you. You've replaced it before, and it just shows up as nothing. So there's no real point in wanting to change it. You might bring it up on the talk page of the main Wikiproject Dog page, but unless the template is changed you won't be able to include SABBA in the infobox. Besides, it's redundant to include the breed's status under SABBA in the infobox, as the group exists expressly for the boerboel breed. as to linking: the external links policy directly discourages non-English language links, especially when the same info is basically provided in other SABBA links. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and unless a link can provide additional info to an English reader, it should not be included on the English Wikipedia.

I disagree, the links are pertinent to the subject matter. And the AKC in the main info box is misleading and should be left out entirely then? The picture on the left is a nice typical expressive image but technically also a bad shot, as Wikipedia is not "photo share" perhaps also not entirely appropriate.


 * your opinion of pertinence does not contradict the clear language of WP:EL. Foreign-language links are not encouraged. Van Tucky  Talk 02:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Fresh start
Good idea Samir?

To be honest I thought the entry was fine until Van Tucky got involved. It is a bit of a mess now, but all is not lost. I have had no time to contribute for personal and time reasons, but honestly now it seems it will involve too much of that time to contribute effectively, i.e. turn it back into a credible entry, more time than I have to spare. Perhaps it is best left as an imperfect thing.

But for what its worth: The word Boel, The phrase, Boel is not a problem but to be accurate it means the following. This is "bully" in its original English adjectival sense of "fine, excellent," itself from the Dutch "boel," meaning "brother, friend, good fellow", Afrikaans in the main being derived from Dutch, and us Afrikaaners that gave you this breed of dog, it simply means "farmers best friend" , Boerboel, no more no less.

Hope that helps some Frikkers

Okay I'd like to go over issues with everyone one paragraph at a time. I've protected the page again in the interim. I understand that VanTucky has asked for an RfC, which is a good idea. -- Samir 04:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC response
Howdy! I've come here in response to the RfC - yet I don't see a question directly posed for RfC'ers to respond to. The debate appears to be about how the intro to the article should read, in which case, my only comment at this time is that we should avoid circular references. As such, the use of boer in the explanation of boerboel without defining 'boer' means that the reader likely still doesn't know what it means. It seems that Samir has a suggestion that might address this and other issues, so I would encourage parties to work towards a common solution using his starting point. Have fun! &mdash; Mrand T-C 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The RFC was for a general edit war going on over several issues in the article, including the above intro, images, external links, and the content of the infobox. I urge all responders to stick around and help reach a consensus on all the issues as we go through them, since the fundamental impetus for the continuation of the dispute was a lack of outside participation in the article. Van Tucky  Talk 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

 * Let's start with the introduction. VanTucky suggests the following:
 * The Boerboel is a large working molosser-type breed of dog from South Africa. The word boerboel is Afrikaans for "Boer's dog". The Boerboel was developed as a guard dog, and retains strong protective instincts. It is intelligent, dominant and confident by nature.


 * Frikkers suggests the following:
 * The Boerboel is a large working molosser type breed of dog from South Africa. The word boerboel is Afrikaans for "farmer's dog".
 * "They are obedient, intelligent, self-assured and bred to have an extremely strong guard-dog instinct in a domestic situation. A natural and selective practical breeding ethic has created a very functional working dog, that is very dominant but thrives best in a responsible family environment with correct and careful training where he can put his natural protective instincts into action when required."


 * The last is a direct quote from http://www.boerboelclub.co.uk. Let us work for a compromise between these two.  First question: is Boerboel Afrikaans for "farmer's dog" or "Boer's dog"?  Any references? -- Samir 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not off the top of my head. I'll look tommorrow. The reason I changed it was because Boer has much larger cultural connotation than simply farmer, even though that is the literal translation. Translating as "Boer's dog" gives a much clearer and more informative indication of the dog's origins. Van Tucky  Talk 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could we go with: The word "boerboel" derives from "boer", the Afrikaans word for "farmer"; boerboel thus translates as either "farmer's dog" or "Boer's dog" in Afrikaans. -- Samir 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's acceptable to me. Van Tucky  Talk 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I shall await Frikkers -- Samir 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Though one of the uses of boer (probably the last one, as it is grammatically the most obvious use in the general, not literal, context) needs to be disambiguated with a link. Van Tucky  Talk 07:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, no response yet from Frikkers, so we shall move on: The lead should be longer, but I am in agreement that we can create a GFDL-friendly intro without having to directly quote anyone.  I also think that the focus of the article should be "The boerboel is..." as opposed to "The boerboel should be...", which connotes a breeder's POV.  Finally, I think that we can safely omit references in the lead for now, as long as the same statements are referenced in the body of the article (unless especially controversial; see WP:LEAD).
 * VanTucky and Frikkers, what are key points in the body of the article (origin, appearance, registration, characteristics/temperament) that should be in the lead? My amateurish version would be something like this:
 * The Boerboel is a large working molosser-type breed of dog from South Africa. The word "boerboel" derives from "boer", the Afrikaans word for "farmer"; boerboel thus translates as either "farmer's dog" or "Boer's dog" in Afrikaans.  There is a lengthy history of breeding the boerboel in South Africa, where the dog was bred with the purpose of defending the homestead.  While it is uncertain from which breeds the dog was originally bred from, it is postulated that the dog derived from interbreeding of indigenous African species with breeds brought from Dutch, French and British settlers.  The dog is a heavily built mastiff breed with characteristic facies and a large-for-proportions head, and a height that varies from 64 to 70 centimetres for males, and 59 to 65 centimetres for females.  They are obedient and  intelligent, and have strong guard-dog instincts, particularly in domestic situations.  By nature, the Boerboel is confident and dominant in its environment, but requires human companionship; if left alone for regular extended periods, they can become destructive, reckless and dangerous.

I agree with your general estimations above, here is my version of the intro above (I like the basic format of it mostly).
 * Please tell me what needs to be added or changed. -- Samir 06:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Boerboel is a large working molosser breed of dog from South Africa. The word "boerboel" derives from "boer", the Afrikaans word for "farmer"; boerboel thus translates as either "farmer's dog" or "Boer's dog" in Afrikaans.  There is a lengthy history of breeding the boerboel in South Africa, where the dog was bred with the purpose of guarding the homestead.  While it is uncertain from which breeds the dog originated, it is postulated that the dog derived from interbreeding of indigenous African species with breeds brought from Dutch, French and British settlers.  The dog is a heavy mastiff breed with a characteristic black and tan coloration, and a height that varies from 64-70 centimetres for males, and 59-65 for females.  They are obedient and  intelligent, and have strong territorial instincts, particularly in domestic situations.  By nature, the Boerboel is confident and dominant in its environment, but requires human companionship; if left alone for regular extended periods, they can become destructive, reckless and dangerous.

How does that look? Van Tucky  Talk 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good summary to me -- Samir 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Small point, but you need to disambiguate either to Dutch, French and British , or to Dutch , French , British. The choice is yours - both ways are OK, IMO. HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Okay, we've given it some time on the lead, and Frikkers has been invited to participate in this discussion, but has not. Regardless, let's move on to the next point of contention, which is the picture for the infobox. VanTucky suggests Image:Hunt Hill Boerboels Male.jpg and Frikkers suggests Image:HuntHillBoerboelGunston-6.jpeg. Both are free use. I've placed them below:


 * Comments? -- Samir 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My objection to the original image (the one at right here) is that is of very poor exposure and definition, as well as having an unsightly colored border. It is simply too substandard an image to use in the lead. From Frikkers previous talk arguments, it is my summary that he felt the image I switched to (at left here) was unsuitable only because it was a dog that did not exemplify the breed standard (I think the comment was: the dog has weak hindquarters). I tried to explain that favoring an image based on an arbitrary breed standard, rather than how well it illustrates the subject, is a violation of NPOV. There are many conflicting standards for breeds, and there is considerable debate among boerboel enthusiasts over the ideal appearance of the breed. There are multiple boerboel associations, each with their own standard. Even if we were to consider this factor, as sometimes happens in breed articles where the standard is, well, fairly standard in acceptance and usage, the first priority is simple photographic quality. As you can also see in the Commons gallery and previous talk, I have tried to suggest over images I found on Flickr, but these were rejected. Van Tucky  Talk 06:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC response
I agree with VanTucky's argument that the picture does not have of a show quality dog, but to be honest, I don't care for either picture. While the picture that we display on the page most certainly doesn't have to be perfect, the one on the left has many shadows which masks coloring and the dog is turned strangely. As VanTucky mentions, the one on the right is lacking in overall quality and I'd add that it doesn't have a high res version available. If push came to shove, I'd probably use the one on the left for the moment, with the intent on finding another one.&mdash; Mrand T-C 11:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point Mrand.....only there is no such thing as a "show Boerboel", showing in the sense of dog beauty pageant is not done with the Boerboel. The picture on the right is a good picture with just fine quality. However this picture has never been an issue for anyone on any edits???? See edit history, just Van Tucky again???

Frikkers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.52.34 (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, per the statements by Mrand, I am not the only who recognizes that the image on the right is unsuitable. Van Tucky  Talk 02:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture break

 * How about we move this one into the infobox. Looks like a pretty good representation to me -- Samir 04:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can accept that. At least it's better than the image Frikkers wanted, even if it looks a little funny. Van Tucky  Talk 02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's go with that. -- Samir 03:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disengaging
The article's now been unprotected and I think we've made a good start toward consensus. Let us consider this to be a consensus version up to now, and I will disengage from the process. Hopefully the editors of this page will be able to work through improving the article even further. Cheers -- Samir 03:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Further disruption
I've issued 4th block following this further image switching against above discussion/consensus, removal of interwikilinks and adding of mispellings. Could other editors look please at some of the addition external links provided in Frikkers' edit to see if any of these were useful.

I've done a little copyediting and sorted out the manually applied numbered references which had no corresponding links in the article itself. David Ruben Talk 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dubious--discuss"
Would whoever placed this tag next to the weight range please explain why so something can be done about it? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Boerboel is like one person with a gun he protect the family and he like kids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.212.83 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"somewhat improved"
agree with the comments on weight. - also far too wide a spread in my view. Generally acknowlegded weight are from 130lbs to 200lbs but haven't found any reliable sources for this. article still looks much improved from my last view. the references to kids feet being chewed off should be removed ... sensationalist and not reflective of the breed in generalSimonjonesmjb (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

never heard of black being acceptable in the breed standardSimonjonesmjb (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

--Ron da mon (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Agreeing on the article link removal, mentioned above. Every large dog has some tragic story attached, and highlighting that in the Wiki for one breed in particular is somewhat odd.

The aspect of this dog is very similar to the Fila Brasileiro
The aspect of this South African dog is very similar to the Fila Brasileiro. Both are guard dogs and in similar places in terms of level of life.Agre22 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

I don't think you need...
You don't need to have every requirement of breed's standard in the wiki article. Most people don't care about their dog's "zygomatic arch" unless it's really messed up, and the few that do care would have to figure out what it is and then how to measure it. You don't need this stuff in the article: "roof of the cranium", "parallel plane with the cranial roof", "It is well protected against the environment by firm and black-pigmented eyelids, showing no structural weaknesses", "", "", ""

Some of it should definitely stay, like: "The head is impressive and a distinctive feature of the Boerboel. It is blocky, broad, deep, fairly short and in proportion to the body. It is muscular with well-filled cheeks." Just put it in normal paragraph form.

Having all that technical info is unnecessary and distracts from the beauty of the breed. It's a huge awkward space in the middle of the article.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you like Wiki Boerboel's new look? Comments? Questions? Criticisms?

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Requirements
I believe this section doesn't comply with writing guidelines. --176.199.192.165 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)