Talk:Dog/Archive 3

Dog Descent
DOGS COME FROM EARLY FORMS Wolfs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffg1011 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Just Noticed That There is an interesting fact about dogs that hasnt been written, its the fact that according to new research that all dogs desend from the grey wolf - provided from natioanl geographic documentory animals in the womb.. Gleno101 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't read as far as the first line of the article, then? -- Ian Dalziel 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dog Communication
The section on dog communication is longer than the Main Article it links to. What is there is mostly cc'ed. If there are no objections I will move the content to that article and leave a summary here. Robogun 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In relation to this, I've gone ahead and removed everything in that section except for the main article link. I don't think it's something that needs a consensus, but please do voice objection if you have them. Tockeg 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Using Scent to mark territory
I didn't see ANYTHING in the article mentioning how dogs use scent to mark territory. 71.132.232.118 08:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Larry 10 FEB 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.232.118 (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC).


 * yeah I had a quick scan and can't seem to find anything either. Something to add maybe... Think outside the box 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

dog is affraid of cats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.191.110 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

articles needed
I am doing a science experiment about whether most dogs prefer to use their left paw instead of their right to complete everyday tasks for school.I also have to write a research report.I could not find one article about dogs brains or their functions.Consider adding this kind of article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.166.28 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * "...whether most dogs prefer to use their left paw instead of their right to complete everyday tasks for school." lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dogs
Why do pugs stick there tongues out all the time?
 * This isn't a classroom or a blog about dogs, but see http://www.doctordog.com/drdognewsletter/tongue.html, http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3u34u4220384846/, etc.

Why do dogs lick their anus? That is the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.28.226.130 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can dogs do tricks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.215.129 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Diet
For dogs to become ill when eating chocoalte they have to eat at least their weight in chocolate.  *NOTE:  ''This is an untrue and dangerous statement. Dogs can become ill and die from even a small amount of chocolate depending on how dark a chocolate it is, and on the dog's age and state of health. ''
 * Actually, according to the article on theobromine poisoning (the active ingredient in chocolate poisoning in dogs and cats), about 10 oz of dark chocolate would kill a medium-sized dog of about 30-35 lbs.

Regarding the health of vegetarian dogs, I found a very appropriate example to back up the information. Please consider adding, after the 6th sentence (or wherever you see fit), the following sentence and citation:

In 2002 it was revealed that Britain's oldest living dog (age 27) ate an exclusively vegan diet typically consisting of "rice, lentils and organic vegetables"

("Vegetable-Eating Dog Lives to Ripe Old Age of 27" Canine Nation. Published: 2002-Sep-18 http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0209/articles/020918a.htm)  *NOTE:  '' Although this claims to be a news story, the The only sources for this seem to be vegan home pages and people's blogs. It would only be worth including if a reliable and verifiable source could be provided. ''

Joseph 72.94.198.129 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "It often surprises pet owners to discover that for animals, chocolate is poisonous in sufficient dosages. Specifically it is the drugs in chocolate, theobromine and caffeine (of the drug class methylxanthines), that are toxic to pets. Only a moderate amount needs to be eaten by an animal, typically a dog, in order to be poisonous (approx. 1/2 oz. of baking chocolate per pound of body weight and less in some animals)." source: -- Boracay Bill 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

need more info on its diet
user2465453.7653.287542.

You have to decide if the domestic dog should be called "canis familiaris" (which means that the dog is an own species) or "canis lupus forma familiaris" (which means that the dog is a sub-species of the wolf)- "canis lupus familiaris" is wrong. If you want to call the dog "canis lupus familiaris", you have to add the expression "forma"; this would mean that the dog is the domestic form of the wolf.

Need to fix origin of the domestic dog
The version of evolution/ development of dog species and varieties contained in the "dog" article is factually incorrect. It is based on the earlier "Science" article that proposed multiple origins from wolves. That is now discredited by the same authors in their more recent "Science" article, as summarized in the version contained in the "origin of the domestic dog" article, which should be used instead of that currently in the "dog" article. OccDoc 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Corn and wheat
I want to explain why I reverted the edit about corn and wheat, since the editor is concerned about why it was reverted before. The first reason is that I don't think it's necessary to say that corn and wheat aren't inherently toxic - I don't think that there is anyone confused by that. Second, I wouldn't consider Petyourdog to be a reliable source. Third, the website seems to suggest that feeding your dog food containing corn or wheat gluten is still a bad idea, so it doesn't support what the editor added. -Joelmills 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Physical characteristics - need hard numbers
This section is vague and offers no hard number regarding the variety of dog shapes & sizes. Sizes and weights should be noted for the heaviest dog (343 lbs) and the lightest dog (27 oz) to back up the opening statement ("Modern dog breeds show more variation in size, appearance, and behavior than any other domestic animal.") I have found a current source which lists all of the record holders here:

"Biggest dog, smallest dog, shortest dog, tallest dog" (Canine Nation. Apr 15, 2007) http://dogsinthenews.com/stories/070415a.php

DOG LAUGHTER
Anyone object to replacing the caption on the photo in the Dog Laughter section? It is not very good at the moment. 66.19.242.87 10:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed it. Any suggestions on a better caption? -Joelmills 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dog Death
I need to know how long dogs usually live. 66.19.242.87 10:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That varies dramatically by breed, as some have much shorter lives than others. You'd probably best consult the page of the specific breed for the average life-span of that specific breed. John Carter 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at Dog, which led me to Aging in dogs. -- Boracay Bill 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence
Intelligence section could benefit from some scientific and anecdotal examples. One very important and unique characteristic of Canis is its ability to process numbers. Please add that in Aug 2002 researchers determined that dogs have the innate ability to count, an ability which had hitherto been observed only in primates (see article published in New Scientist "Secret lives of dogs" 2002-Aug-03 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523542.800-secret-lives-of-dogs.html). To back up this theoretical discovery, it would be nice to reference last month's news report of a dog in China who displays the ability to count, add, subtract, multiply and divide numbers up to 10 (see Canine Nation "Mutt does math" 2007-Apr-27 http://dogsinthenews.com/stories/070427a.php)

71.185.67.169 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph Inadequate
If you're going to mention the variance in dog sizes, use the correct examples and back them up with citations. The smallest dog (Chihuahua) is 6" long. The tallest dog is not an Irish Wolfhound; he's a Harlequin Great Dane (42" to shoulders). That would give the article a bit less ambiguity. Read up here: http://dogsinthenews.com/stories/070415a.php

POV in Spaying/Neutering Section
The present section has quite a marked pro-neutering bias. This should be corrected. The article Neutering gives a much more neutral view, which should also be adopted in this article.

Also, the phrase "the less developed countries of Europe" is POV, and insulting at that. Are the Scandinavic countries (some of which prohibit the procedure without a proper medical indication) to be considered less developed? What about Germany, Switzerland, the Benelux, France, Italy, Spain? The procedure is considerably less common in Europe than in North America (no argument about that), but this must not be converted into some pseudo-argument about developmental stages. --130.92.9.58 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I reworked it a little. Let me know what you think. --Joelmills 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Considerably better - thanks. I'll have to find some sources about the frequency in different countries. In my experience and perception though, there is no European country that has as high frequencies of s/n dogs as North America has. --130.92.9.56 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dog Grooming and Companionship
I think that there needs to be a section about dog grooming within this article. I also think it's important to update the human companionship section to include the new trends: dog clothes, dog haircare and beauty products, etc. It seems that these things are becoming as important as diet to pet owners. Should this be a separate article?

LLRap 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest replacing picture under Working Dogs
I'm not sure how a picture of a Newfoundland dressed up in baby clothes is a proper illustration of working dogs. It's not even a good photograph, much less an illustrative one. Is there not a better illustration available? This is disrespectful to a magnificent breed. JoKing 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC) JoKing


 * Agreed. Here are some options from Commons...

VanTucky 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to spay/neuter section
I just added a few fact tags to the recent addition to the spay neuter section. I don't doubt (and even strongly suspect) that most of those things are true to one degree or another, but statements like there is mounting evidence and now being attributed really need citations to back them up. If this evidence exists, then it should be easy to give a reference to it. I did add a reference for the presence of estrogens in dog food that may be high enough to have a biological effect, but I removed the statement: "It is the total estrogen load that contributes to the estrogen-related disorders of mammary cancer and pyometra and spaying simply reduces that overall load."

because that seems to infer that the dietary estrogens contribute significantly to the development of mammary cancer and pyometra, evidence for which I searched Pubmed and came up with nothing. I also removed the dietary advice, and the phrase perpetual puppy syndrome, because the only place I could find that phrase related to neutering was the contributor's own website. --Joelmills 03:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory
I've replaced facfailed, oldpeerreview and GA templates with single ArticleHistory template containing all information those previous templates had. But I was unable to find when was this article promoted to Good Article status or the revision id for the PR and FAC versions. Shinhan 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

18.1 Neoteny in the rapid evolution of diverse dog breeds
With respect to the retention of juvenile traits, I disagree with the statement, "This is true of many domesticated animals, including humans themselves, who have many characteristics similar to young bonobos." First, humans are not domesticated animals, as they have not undergone artificial selection by themselves or any other being (in which case "including" would need to be replaced by "and". Second, the contention that similarities between human traits and those of juvenile bonobos are linked in this way, rather than being purely coincidental, seems highly speculative (and unreferenced).  I would suggest omitting this sentence altogether.

Sfbergo 07:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Domestication does not require artificial selection nor even human intent, so humans could have, (and many argue, did) domesticate themselves. Speciate 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How about writing about "dog" people versus "cat" people, maybe near the end of the article.

Dogs may infer others' mental states
Experimental evidence suggests that dogs are able to infer the mental states of other dogs and of humans, may thus be aware others have thoughts and mental states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060300960.html

--Calypsoparakeet 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Laughter in animals

 * Laughter might not be confined or unique to humans, despite Aristotle's observation that "only the human animal laughs". The differences between chimpanzee and human laughter may be the result of adaptations that have evolved to enable human speech. However, some behavioral psychologists argue that self-awareness of one's situation, or the ability to identify with somebody else's predicament, are prerequisites for laughter, so animals are not really laughing in the same way that humans do.

The above section has nothing directly to do with dogs and there should probably be moved to a seperate article e.g. on animal behaviour. Then perhaps a single line mentioning that there's debate whether laughter in animals is comparable to human laughter. Nil Einne 15:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Absurd sentence
The sentence "Genetic research has identified 14 ancient dog breeds, with the oldest being the Chow Chow, Shar Pei, Akita Inu, Shiba Inu and Basenji." is just absurd. These are not the oldest breeds known. None of them resemble the wolf in the slightest. My reaction to this sentence is not from anything I've studied or heard from any knowledgeable person-- it's just a matter of logic. As breeds are spun off of the original, the earliest must resemble the original. These Chinese breeds are about as far from wolves as you can get... I hope someone with real knowledge can intervene here. JDG 14:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the oldest dog breed would closely resemble the wolf, but that oldest dog breed probably doesn't exist anymore. The reason those breeds mentioned in the article are considered the most ancient is because their DNA most closely resembles the DNA of a wolf.  Their morphological characteristics vary widely, but genetically they more closely resemble the wolf than other breeds.  Futhermore, the greater diversity of East Asian breeds supports the origination of the dog in that area.  To quote the article used as a source,, "these data indicate that the haplotypes of clade A in the western part of the world originate from the introduction of a subset of East Asian types, from which the types unique to West have later developed."  --Joelmills 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you make good points, but I wonder if other archeaobiologists differ from your group. It is unusual for breeds to disappear in the way you describe. Usually in the course of the artificial selection process that we call "domestication" and "breeding", milestone breeds (or, in the plant world, strains and cultivars) are carefully preserved while experimentation proceeds with a group of animals or seeds put aside for that purpose. But for dogs in East Asia we are to accept that many, perhaps as many as a dozen, intermediate breeds were allowed to vanish until we reach the time of the Chow Chow, Shar Pei, etc., and then, starting from that point, breeds were preserved. It's possible, but seems a strain... I'll try to find if there's any professional controversy on this. Thx for your input, Joel. JDG 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing I'll mention is that it is possible that the earlier, wolf-like breeds may have retained other wolf-like qualities such as a lack of trainability. In changing this, people may have also changed their appearance (perhaps in their minds linking appearance with personality).  And it was 15,000 years ago, so who knows if the people were thinking that much about conservation of their efforts.  Incidentally, there are other extinct dog breeds, including some like the Molossus that were the basis of many other popular breeds.  It is an interesting question, and on article on ancient dog breeds would be great if we can find any good sources for it.  Oh, there is an article on that, although it's not really what I had in mind.  --Joelmills 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well-- after looking for 5 minutes, I see that the question "Where and when was the dog first domesticated?" is still very much an open question among geneticists and others. A 2005 paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution (Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Dec;22(12):2541-51. Epub 2005 Aug 24.) titled Mitochondrial DNA from Prehistoric Canids Highlights Relationships Between Dogs and South-East European Wolves, by Fabio Verginelli, et. al., states "Phylogenetic investigations highlighted relationships between the ancient sequences and geographically widespread extant dog matrilines and between the ancient sequences and extant wolf matrilines of mainly East European origin. The results provide a-DNA (ancient DNA--JDG) support for the involvement of European wolves in the origins of the three major dog clades. Genetic data also suggest multiple independent domestication events."... I don't know if the authors are denying a very ancient domestication event in East Asia, but they are certainly postulating multiple independent events and denying the conclusions of the paper you quote (they reference that paper and comment "Scenarios provided by genetic studies range from multiple dog-founding events to a single origin in East Asia."). So, to peg the most ancient breeds alive today, we would need to know which of these events was the oldest and then see which are the oldest extant breeds from that line, if possible...We obviously need to take a fresh look at all this and overhaul Origin of the domestic dog. JDG 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking Dogs
I noticed that in The dogs talked. I added that in the dog's intelligence.

8.4 Copulation
Suggest removing this section. It is redundant as it is already covered word for word in the article Canine Reproduction As well, the description is graphic for someone looking for general information on dogs, as many kids will be. If people want this information they can look under the aforementioned article.

Image work
I recently did some extensive cleanup of the images in this article. Many of the previous images had little or nothing to do with the adjacent subject-matter, were quite poor photographically, or were placed in an odd or cumbersome way. Feel free to drop me line if you have any ideas or objections to the work I've done. VanTucky (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Main image
The main image, besides being of much better photographic composition than the changed version, is of a Lab for one very logical reason: it is the most popular dog the world over. VanTucky (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can everyone discuss and vote on why the other image was/wasn't better before removal? --EvanS 22:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned with creating consensus for changes, the recommended action to take is to propose any controversial changes before making them. VanTucky  (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, Sorry. But can we take a vote now? --EvanS 22:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Decisions are not made in Wikipedia through voting, you may want to read What Wikipedia is not, specifically that it is not a democracy. VanTucky  (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not know that because I am new to Wikipedia. But I have seen on some talk pages - debate messages over images for the article.  How are these debates resolved?  If not how is it decided which images are better for the article?

It may be helpful to read the introduction to Wikipedia for a good overview. thanks for letting me know you're new. VanTucky (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming it's alright to put the picture somewhere else on the page. --EvanS 23:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The question to ask is: What encyclopedic purpose would it serve not already filled in the article? You may want to consider adding it to the Jack Russel Terrier article. VanTucky  (talk)
 * Thanks for the suggestion - I just added it to the "Jack Russell Terrier" article. But I still have another question.  Whose decision is it of which photo is placed in the info box? And if you are just another Wikipedia user - not a moderator person - don't I have just as much a say in things as you?  Just because you edit an article a lot doesn't make you the king of it.  P.S.  Thanks for the welcoming comments in my talk page - really appreciate it. --EvanS 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not an authority in any sense of the word. You absolutely do have just as much as say in things as I do. You do not have to take my word as truth or the final say. It's most hard to get things done and make decisions when only one or two users participate in a discussion, but respecting the experience of other users is often a good idea. I suggest diving right in and getting some good editing experience, and to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding issues. For images, a good place to start is WP:IMAGES and WP:IUP. For this article, and concerning the infobox, it is important to keep in mind that the article is rated as a "Good Article", which means that it (including the infobox image) is considered some of the best of Wikipedia. Making major changes to articles, especially of GA or Featured Article status, is best handled by proposing your idea on the talk page first. VanTucky  (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand who you think you are! Some sort of king - going around removing images from articles?
 * First, what you are saying is that I should have gotten opinions on the talk page first before posting the image.
 * Then you say that Wikipedia is not a democracy. (So then opinions wouldn't really matter, would they?)
 * So who decides what images go where? And why do you think that you can suddenly act on your own opinions and remove loads of images like you're doing? And if I have just as much a say in things as you do, (like you said) then I should be able to put my image on the page without you removing it. --EvanS 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're not willing to have your edits mercilessly re-edited, this is not the place for you. It happens to everyone, and the fact that anyone can edit anything is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. So me removing your image isn't presumptuous, it's just the same thing a thousand other editors might do. If there is a disagreement, we try and discuss it here and reach a consensus on the outcome. So no single person decides anything. It's a collaborative process. But the equal weight of our opinions doesn't mean no one can change anything you do. VanTucky  (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "No single person decides anything," you say. Isn't that what you did when you removed my image? -- EvanS  (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed your image from within the text of the Intelligence section for the following reasons: VanTucky (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It significantly cluttered the text.
 * The article already has many images.
 * The image did not have a clear, encyclopedic purpose related to its placement or its subject matter.
 * The caption calling the dog "intelligent" was inappropriate. The test for inclusion of facts is their verifiability in reliable, published sources.

The most appropriate place for the image in question in the Dog harness article since the dog is wearing a pet harness. Since that article did not have a photograph of a pet harness, the image improves the quality of that article. I have added the image to that article. In contrast, the image does not fit into this article, for reasons VanTucky stated above, or the Jack Russell Terrier (JRT) article. I removed the image from the JRT article for the following reasons: --Coaster1983 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article already had photographs of smooth-coated JTRs, therefore the image is redundant
 * The article already had a photograph of a non-conforming pricked-ear JRT, therefore the image is redundant
 * In | this edit, the lead section text and table of contents box are sandwiched between the image and the infobox.
 * in | this edit, the text is again sandwiched between the preexisting image and the new image.

Suggestion for Images
This is just a suggestion and I would like to have some opinions. Some people use Wikipedia to find out information. There are also other people who visit this website to find free-licensed photos that cannot be as easily found on Flickr and a C.C. search. For example, I recently visit an educational website that said they had found all of their photos used on Wikipedia. So before we remove any more images from this page, can we consider starting a photo gallery at the bottom of the page for the type of people simply looking for a dog image? And even if we didn't want to do that, we could start a new Wikipedia page (dog photos, for example) and link to it at the bottom of this page for that type of people. -- EvanS (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what the Dogs Category on Wikimedia Commons already does. It contains hundreds if not thousands of public domain photographs of dogs. There already is a link to it in the external links section.--Coaster1983 14:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A gallery should exist in an article for a very specific informative purpose and must have a clear scope. A large and indiscriminate gallery of dogs that is there just to provide free images is inappropriate, as Wikipedia is not an image gallery. As Coaster has pointed out, Wikimedia Commons would be happy to have any free images you want to upload. VanTucky  (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias towards purebreds
It seems odd to me that pictures of mixed-breeds get edited out immediately from this page. I would suggest you put the picture of the mixed breed back in. It seems there is a bias towards purebreds here. Mister Gallagher 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Mister Gallagher


 * I think you need to work harder to assume good faith. You're correct that there are more pure-breds here (the image of the dogs mushing is of a mixed-bred team), but I removed the image in question because it is overused. Using a single image in five different articles when there many many other examples of the subject in question is inappropriate. I'll find a different mixed-breed image. VanTucky  (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added two mixed-breed images. VanTucky  (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks good, however one of the images added was a cross-breed, not a mixed-breed. "Designer dogs" such as the Goldendoodle are deliberate crosses. See wiki article "Dog hybrids and crossbreeds" for further information. Mister Gallagher 13:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article review
I have recently began to contribute to this article, and I find it has many sections that contain potentially controversial facts without proper sourcing. As a user who has couple GA reviews under my belt, I was quite shocked to realize that the article continues to be listed (when taken in comparison to other GA articles). I feel the article should be delisted immediately, as the offending sections have sat unimproved (some with tags) for quite some time. I decline to delist it myself unless absolutely necessary, as I have recently contributed significantly. Though the entire article needs reviewing for verifiability problems, the specific sections that contain large amounts of unverified assertions are: If the controversial facts in these sections are covered under general sources, they need to be footnoted or Harvard referenced. Also, other minor problems include:
 * Hearing
 * Smell
 * Sprint metabolism
 * Intelligence
 * Diet
 * Wolf ancestry
 * Laughter in dogs
 * The overpopulation section lacks comprehensiveness and a global viewpoint
 * The article seems to be compromised in some sections, such as Dog breeds, with peacock words.
 * The article is not stable, and major changes/rewrites occur on a regular basis.
 * The list of famous sayings about dogs is both trivial and should be transwiki'd to Wikiquote. VanTucky  (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article needs a great amount of work to get it back to what a GA should be . In addition to VanTucky's list about,I have noticed the following problems with the article:
 * The lead section is too short for the article.
 * The overview section should be removed as it is redundant because the lead section already overviews the article. The human relationships subsection could moved into the behavior section and the origins subsection will be explained below.
 * Origins of the domestic dog is covered three times in the article. This needs to be condensed to one section and the other two sections need to be merged into the origin of the domestic dog article.
 * Lack of a taxonomy section. The terminology section is close though
 * I have already done some work on the article to improve the layout of it. I shifted the behavior section up the article to just under the physical characteristics section. Also,I changed the diet and reproduction, now titled reproduction and lifestyle, sections so that they are now a subsections of behavior.  My reason for these changes is that featured animal articles, such as Bobcat, are laid out this way.
 * I condensed the old reproduction section from six or seven paragraphs and five subsections into three paragraphs. The information is already in the Canine Reproduction article, so I summarized it. The subsection had terms such as "in heat" and "in season" instead of proper terms like estrus and estrous.  The subsection still does not have any sources and still needs to have the lifespan and old subsection in the dog health merged into it.
 * I shifted the dangerous substances subsection from the diet section to the dog health section as it is more appropriate under the later section. I also trimmed some of the entries in the see also that were already in the article and therefore were redundant.--Coaster1983 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have delisted this article. It was listed as GA in early 2006, before reviews were in place. Since then, criteria have been created to judge the quality of an article for GA. This article does not meet that criteria. The article can be nominated at WP:GAC once it has been brought up to standards. Regards, Lara  ♥Love  03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Eslam and Dog
I just wanted to add somethings to it like: in "hadith" is "one man was eating his food and by eating each bite he gave one to a dog az well prophit mohammad saied that God forgave all his sins for this act" and also hitting and bothering animal is strongly prohibited in Islam. Also here is some interesting things;

Unlike other dogs, salukis are not viewed as being "unclean" by the Bedouin. While saluki coats come in a variety of colors, the grizzled pattern is the most common and affords the most opportunity for a dog to bear the "kiss of Allah" or a white diamond pattern on its forehead. In Arabic countries most dogs are referred to as kalb (meaning dog) but salukis are referred to as salukis; this is because of their royal background and their 'clean' living habits, and is also due to their value (capital and sentimental). Saluki is an Persian(Iranian)/Egiptian Dog and A study published in the May 21, 2004 issue of Science confirmed the saluki's antiquity through DNA analysis, which identified it as one of the earliest breeds to diverge from wolves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.5.168 (talk • contribs).

i think dogs are awesome!


 * The Islam section could use some work, and lightening up. Steve Dufour 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and rewrote the section. I knew almost nothing about the topic and just used the information found in Islam and animals.  I hope that it is at least a little easier to read than before.  (And as I said, lighten up.  This article is about dogs, not the spiritual angst of modern Muslims. :-))  Blessings to all. Steve Dufour 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture in religion section
I have been working on this section. The picture I added, of Saint Roch, was intended to illustrate the Christianity section. Obviously, it would be hard to find a picture for the Islam section. I see the picture has been moved. On my screen (I am using a Mac with their browser) the picture now shows up next to the Islam section. Could someone fix this? Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm on OS X, and so far it looks to mostly be in the Christianity section. VanTucky (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be better now, thanks. Steve Dufour 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

sprint metabolism
We take our airedale terrier out on bike rides in the winter and spring ( temperature 5-15 degrees centrigrade) she can run for and hour and a half without any sign of fatigue or difficulty. What is the evidence that most dogs will be slower than humans in a marathon? DJKG 10:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization
The organization of topics is scattershot. (E.g., Why is 'Diet" under "Behavior"?) I suggest all the scattered sections having to do with origins, evolution, and breed development be grouped under a single section, all sections about behavior and intelligence be grouped, all sections about reproductions, neutering, and population control be grouped, etc. Kelly Cassidy 14:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 24 August 2007
 * Overall, I agree with you. The article still needs to be reorganized and condensed.  The reason that I moved the diet  subsection into the behavior section is that this is the way that FA carnivorous animal articles are laid out (see Bobcat for an example).Coaster1983 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

mixed breed image
Jujumagumbo seems to think that the image of his puppy is more appropriate for the article. I strongly disagree. It doesn't show the entire dog, doesn't patently look very mixed, and is overexposed. The original image is framed well, of decent exposure and shows the entirety of a puppy which quite obviously is of mixed breed. Wikipedia is not an image gallery for user's pets. No reason at all was ever given for switching to the new image, and I can see none. VanTucky (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a pic of my Border Collie-Rottie mix at the lake with a big ole bone and a Lone Star that I really like, but the original picture fill the need very well. New guy's? Not so much.--Evb-wiki 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the whole-dog picture is probably better, however mixed breed dogs are so variable that no one picture can illustrate them. Is there a way to point readers to a gallery of mixed breed photos or to have an automated rotation of mixed breed photos? Kelly Cassidy 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no automated rotation function that I know of, nor do I think it is quite appropriate for the general dog article. But you bring up a good idea, the Mixed-breed dog article probably needs a link to Wikimedia Commons (our sister project, a repository of free images). I'll do it now. VanTucky  (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, already there. Linking to Commons (such as we did in this article in the infobox, and more commonly with a templated link at the bottom) is the customary way of providing more images if they are not appropriate to add in the article. VanTucky  (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mixed-breed dog article itself could probably use more images, too. Maybe even a small gallery. --Evb-wiki 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know how to add a gallery? (Patricia Op 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC))


 * There was a general consensus, derived from discussion at the Wikiproject Dog talk page, that unless they have a very discriminate criteria for inclusion and are vitally necessarry, galleries should not be included in dog articles. This function is generally filled by the linked Wikimedia Commons category page for dogs. I strongly disagree with adding a gallery to the mixed-breed dog article, as this would quickly become an inordinate dumping ground for inappropriate images. Considering the millions of possible variations in the appearance of a mixed-breed dog, it is not appropriate to try and have a gallery that gives an overview of the range of appearances possible. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. VanTucky  (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. (Patricia Op 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC))


 * It seems that everyone thinks the other picture is better suited for the article, and I respect that, therefore I will not put the picture back up. I'd just like to say that when I first put it up, there WAS no other picture there. It didn't replace the other picture, the other one replaced mine. Jujumagumbo

Green eyes?
I've got a question. Whenever i take a flash photograph of my dog, his eyes always turn up green, instead of the usual red in humans. Why is that? --AnY FOUR! 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because most dogs have a tapetum lucidum, a reflective surface that lays at the back of the eye behind the retina. The tapetum is usually greenish-yellow, and that's what you see reflect the flash.  It's also why you can see dogs' and cats' eyes at night.  --Joelmills 03:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins: 100,000 years ago?
This is in the first paragraph of the Origins section: "Some research appears to show that dogs were domesticated from wolves as recently as 15,000 years ago,[2] or perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago based upon recent genetic, fossil and DNA evidence.[3]"

The citation for the latter claim is just, "Vilà, C. et al. (1997)." Am I missing something or does the claim sound unlikely and the citation flimsy?--24.74.1.139 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine it's from here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What I have gathered is that the lineage of dogs separated from that of other wolves about 100,000 years ago. It is not known when dogs began to associate with humans. The first fossils of dogs that show signs of domestication are from about 15,000 years ago. Steve Dufour 03:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i know jim green ahgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.216.208 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dog Aggression
I'm surprised that there is nothing about the dangerous dog breed debate or sheep worrying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.179.158 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There should be something about dog attacks and the problem of rabies, which still kills thousands of people in India and Africa. Steve Dufour 16:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

New textbox pic
These pictures are pretty good. I would prefer a black or chocolate dog, but one of these are good enough for a replacement. 69.179.60.86 03:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dog Onomatopoeia
I just wanted to add to the Dog Onomatopoeia table that the Polish dog onomatopoeia is 'Hau hau'. Unfortunately, I'm a new user and don't really know how to edit this page. SamaraNessa 10:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the contribution. I took care of it for you. Steve Dufour 16:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have amended the French one ("ouah ouah"/"wah wah" is more often used than "ouaf ouaf"/"waf waf") but it's semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.148.118 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to add the basque onomatopoeia for barking: zaunk zaunk. Thanks. 158.227.18.167 (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Indonesian onomatopoeia for a dog's bark should be "Guk-guk". The word "Gong gong" -- which is actually "gonggong" -- is the Indonesian word for "bark". (E.g. "menggonggong" is "to bark / barking", "gonggongan" is "(the) bark") I would like to change the entry, unfortunately the article is protected. -- Stanley Hendoro @ 203.27.145.109 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Indonesian entry Coaster1983 (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed this whole section (without discussion?) in mid-January. I know that the material used to exist somewhere more appropriate but can't find it now. I've moved the material for now to bark (dog). Elf | Talk 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Some wolf info trimmed
I took out some of the section that discussed dog ancestry but seemed to be about a fringe theory and was uncited. This is an interesting topic but a general encyclopedia article on dogs is not really the best place to carry on a debate about it. Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.192.254 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image
Hi, Rather than jump in and put my pic in the article I thought I'd leave it here on the talk page to see if anyone thinks it's worth including... --Fir0002 07:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly see a need for it. Van Tucky  talk 04:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really show the leash, just the collar. --andreasegde 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dog Sport
It looks like the dog sport section could be expanded on (based on the dog sport page contents). I'm new to this and didn't want to just start editing the article without first making note of it. How should I proceed?Angus77 (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)