Talk:Jacob sheep

Why Jacob (sheep) and not Jacob sheep?
It seems to me that the title of this article should be Jacob sheep, rather than Jacob (sheep). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? DiverDave (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a perennial problem with breed articles. A breed may be "the Something" – for example, there is more than one breed called "the Shetland", and in WP we need to disambiguate these from each other and from the Isles etc of the same name by an epithet: Shetland (sheep), Shetland (cattle).  On the other hand, for a relatively few other breeds the type of animal is included in the breed name, so it's the Shetland Sheepdog, American Quarter Horse, Spanish Fighting Bull etc.


 * So the question is, is it "the Jacob", which happens to be a sheep, or is the breed always called "the Jacob Sheep"? It's not particularly obvious for many breeds, and usage may vary quite a bit even within the same source.  I find it helps to imagine the breed in a list with others: would you say "Manx Loaghtan, Jacob, Hebridean", or "Manx Loaghtan, Jacob Sheep, Hebridean"?


 * I'd say just "Jacob", and that is how this and almost all other sheep breeds are shown in List of sheep breeds. What do you think?  Richard New Forest (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To elaborate on Richard's comment... it's for disambiguation purposes, and the reason it's parenthetical instead of not is that the name of the breed is simply the Jacob. Any time you'd mention Jacobs in conversation (like this one) where you know you're discussing sheep and not say, the Jacobs family, you wouldn't constantly say "Jacob sheep". If you look at the list of sheep breeds it's sort of the convention we've chosen. Steven Walling  22:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Thank you both for your help! Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Weight and so on
I've made a few small changes to this page over the last few days, but thought I'd start a bit of discussion here before making too many more. I think there a number of problems here, of which the most glaring is WP:Weight: there's a huge section on Tay-Sachs disease, far larger than the section on the sheep in our page on that disease, but no discussion of the (rather interesting) genetic causes for the spotted coat and extra horns; there's a lot of Biblical mythology about other sheep in a far-away place and a long-ago time, but very little on the history of this sheep in Britain in the last few hundred years; there's a large and over-detailed section on the export of a small herd to Israel, but no discussion of other countries where these sheep are reared (Germany, Holland, where else?); there's a lot about Jacobs in the United States, where there are rather few of them, and very little about them in the UK, where there are rather a lot. There's fairly extended discussion of Fat-tailed sheep and Northern European short-tailed sheep, two breed groups that this sheep doesn't belong to. There's no mention of the origin given by the breed society (yes, not necessarily a reliable source) – imports from Spain by landowners as park animals – or of the supposed origin of the use of the "Jacob" name (I'll have to search for that, I forget now where I read it and whether it was a useable source).

I'm also uncomfortable about the identification of the four-horned ram skull in Bordeaux as belonging to this breed, as I see nothing in the original Flickr posting to suggest that it does. , your name is on that upload, can you remember why you chose that filename? And while we're at it, that's a nice Rubens, but those sheep are not this sheep – why is it relevant here?

Unless anyone offers any objection, I plan to prune the Tay-Sachs and Israel sections fairly drastically; but I'm fully open to reasons as to why I should not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was fairly long time ago, I probably just thought it was the only breed with four horns, and didn't do as much research either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I've removed it for now as uncertain. I don't see that there are many or any four-horned sheep in France, but there seem to be some in Algeria; without a look at the label of the exhibit, or a catalogue of the museum, I don't think we're likely to get a certain answer on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Jacob sheep skulls seem to be exhibited in other French museums: But it of course does not show what the Bordeaux skull belongs to... In any case, we do have another photo of a skull, which might be interesting to show. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! – I don't know why I didn't think to look for that for myself. Now added. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On this note, would also be nice to show a ram with really pronounced horns (in front view), such as here: The current infobox image is a better photo, so shouldn't be replaced, but it just doesn't really give a good view of the horns, which is probably what the breed is best known for. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference error
Please change the text: A breed society, the Jacob Sheep Society, was formed in July 1969. to: A breed society, the Jacob Sheep Society, was formed in July 1969. in order to fix the reference error I've created. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Sheep Connection to Israel


It has come to my attention that a Wikipedia user has consistently eliminating the section connecting the Jacob Sheep breed to Israel. Indeed there was a Jacob Sheep flock that made it to Israel, drawing national and international headlines in 2016, and the development is noteworthy to an encyclopedia article. The reason why the whole section has to be wiped out and any mention of Israel removed does not portray a fair description of developments regarding the breed.

The Jacob Sheep arrival in Israel has started a movement with many wanting the animals to eventually be the "national animal" and is an ongoing current event. The breed is linked to Israel whether Wiki user likes it or not and an attempt should be made to be factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion, . I see that you are a very new user, so you may not be familiar with our policy on neutral point of view in general, and in particular with the section on weight. I invite you to read about those things. The recent export of a small flock of these sheep from Canada to Israel has not been removed from the article, but reduced and moved to the paragraph about the various small populations of the breed outside its country of origin, the United Kingdom. I have also similarly reduced a large section on the (very rare) occurrence of Tay-Sachs disease in this breed, for exactly the same reason – its size was out of proportion to its importance to the subject of the page. I plan to similarly reduce sections on Biblical history (which is relevant only to the origin of the name), on fat-tailed sheep (which as far as I can discover is of exactly no relevance at all), and on northern European short-tailed sheep (also of only marginal relevance, since this sheep does not belong to that group). I also intend to include some of the actual history of the breed, which is almost entirely absent from the page as it stands (from its origins in the 16th/17th centuries to the first written references in the nineteenth century, the first description in the early twentieth, and its establishment and recognition as a breed a few decades ago), and to expand the sections on its two most remarkable characteristics, its coat and its horns. I'd be delighted if you would like to help with some of that.
 * You might also like to read a bit about what Wikipedia is not, including particularly the sections on why it is not a soapbox and not a current events site. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been following the back and forth reversions here, and I think that the former text was excessive, but now the reader is left wondering why these sheep have been introduced to Israel. I think it warrants at least a brief explanation of why they should supposedly be important to Israel, just so we know why they were put there. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User, thanks for the feedback. There needs to be a way to accurately portray the developments that is happening. In Israel, the Jacob Sheep are a big deal and in fact the Hebrew Wiki has a section on Jacob Sheep in Israel. The article should make it clear that there are Jews that legitimately believe these are the flock of the Patriarch Jacob. How this is portrayed can be discussed, but should not be dismissed.

In addition, saying the Jacob Sheep originate in the United Kingdom is not an accurate depiction of the breed. The Jacob Sheep Society of the United Kingdom themselves suggest a Middle Eastern origin of the breed as does (to a lesser degree but still) the American Jacob Sheep Breeders Association. There are multiple verifiable facts and the article should not portray one over the other.

Further discussion and changes as to a more neutral article that depicts all the facts is welcome.
 * Unless you can provide reliable sources then we can add nothing, and repeatedly adding a POV tag is not helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User Theroadislong, there was a section with full references on the site but was continuously deleted. If I will reconstruct a section, I want guarantees hat the section will not be continuously deleted but rather discussed here to cover all relevant issues.

A new condensed section is being added on Israel. It will be backed by references.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , do you want to do that, then? I don't think I'd make a good job of it, as the only possible explanation I can find is fundamental misconception of what this breed is and where it came from. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is a common misconception, Wikipedia would be a good place to set the facts straight. But I don't know anything about this issue at all, so I wouldn't really be able to do much. I would imagine all that would need to be added is that they have been planted in Israel due to a belief that they are related to the original sheep of Jacob, or some such. --FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The new changes, in the form of a sentence is insubstantive. It is not simply a couple that thinks the sheep are from Genesis, but is a movement in the country. It should be its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide reliable sources then we can add nothing, and repeatedly adding a POV tag is disruptive and unhelpful. Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Sheep Connection to Israel (neutrality)
This is now the second time this section has been deleted from the talk section. The article is not neutral because only one point of view regarding origin (United Kingdom) is presented when both the Jacob Sheep Society of the UK and the Jacob Sheep Breeders Association suggest other origin.

In addition, the article minimizes any connection the animal has both to the Jewish people and Israel, and shutting this out by deleting is not going to change the truth behind the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not concerned with your truth or anyone else's truth. Wikipedia only reports on what the reliable sources say about a subject, you have not provided any sources yet? Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't suggest they originated in the United Kingdom it says they probably came from Far East, Middle East, and Mediterranean regions and or Syria. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, it seems to me that there's a lot of stuff in this article that is poorly or barely supported by reliable sources, and any origin in the the Middle East seems to be one of those things. This is a British breed; it derives (at least in part) from sheep brought to Britain from the Iberian peninsula some hundreds of years ago. As far as I can see, anything about origins before that is pure WP:OR. The name of the breed derives from an imagined similarity to sheep in a biblical story. Apart from that, the only demonstrable connection it has with Israel is that a few were taken there recently; that, and that alone, is amply supported by the various news sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on a reliable source, I added mention that the importation to Israel was motivated by people who believe the breed was mentioned in Genesis, but also neutralized the earlier claim that implied that believe is correct. I think the article should fairly represent both sides now. -- Beland (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The editing is locked (due to intermediate edits) for this article, making visual editing very difficult. Can the user that locked the editing please disable it allowing visual editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZionistLantern (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation, close paraphrasing
I'm disturbed to find just how much the phrasing in this article resembles the phrasing of the sources. An example: In my opinion that goes well beyond close paraphrasing – I'll remove it in a moment. It was added with. , would you care to comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is also content copied and pasted from this copyrighted source Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It just gets worse and worse:


 * What do you think, blank and list, or can we deal with it without? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortunately we don't need to worry about petmapz – that is surely a copy of our page. One less thing … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
There's been a lot of adding and removing of maintenance tags to and from this article. Some of that was me – I added disputed and close paraphrasing a few days ago. Personally, I'd like those, and the POV placed by someone else, to stay on the page until there's agreement here that those issues have been dealt with. Until the previous content has all been checked against the sources, I won't be confident that all the copyvio problems have been removed; the alternative is to blank the page and list it at WP:CP, but that seems a bit like overkill. And I certainly dispute the inclusion of a story from a religious text in a way that suggests that it might be factual. has added a good paragraph, "Some believe …" (thank you, Beland!). But why do we need that here? This encyclopaedia should be repository of knowledge, not a repository of unfounded and misguided beliefs. I note, for example, that our article on the History of Earth does not contain any discussion at all of the many mythical explanations of the creation; that seems to me a good example which would we do well to follow here – except that here, a reference to the biblical story is needed to explain the modern name of the breed. I have made a request at WP:RX for some sources that might help improve the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We link to dating creation from age of the universe because we have separate articles for the scientific consensus vs. diversity of religious views about that subject. We briefly discuss creationism on evolution and link to articles about the controversy and religious viewpoints. I just added a similar link from History of Earth to creation myth because we do have extensive coverage of those.  In all of those cases, the non-scientific viewpoint is notable enough that we have separate articles to cover them.  That makes the scientifically-focused articles a lot less confusing, of more reasonable length, and more coherent with respect to the type of evidence they are explaining.  In the case of Jacob sheep, there's not enough to say about the non-scientific viewpoint to justify a separate article, so all of the coverage needs to go on this article.  The dispute over whether the modern breed is discussed in the Bible is notable — it's gotten international news coverage, and indeed it's the only reason I've heard about this breed at all.  Explaining that some people believe the two are the same is necessary to explain why the breed has been imported to Israel.  Excluding that from the encyclopedia entirely would generate complaints (as happened above) that this viewpoint is not being fairly represented, and though I am unconvinced that viewpoint is factually accurate, I agree that the complaint is legitimate.  This dispute will also be the reason many readers are coming to this article, so I think it's useful to present it if only to explain the objections to it.  Right now, the article is doing that in what I think is an appropriately brief way. Perhaps there are more interesting things to say about the controversy, but I wouldn't want to trim coverage of it beyond perhaps using more concise language. -- Beland (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacob sheep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608011849/http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/sheep/jacob/index.htm to http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/sheep/jacob/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Tags
There are a few sections above regarding weight, neutrality, copyvio and other issues. There have also been a lot of editing and discussion of editing of the article since then. So I was wondering where we stand with the article currently? Can we remove the tags or does it need to be delisted. . AIRcorn (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the factuality and neutrality disputes were just about the origin question. If so, I think that's been resolved fairly, so I removed those tags.  If anyone disagrees, feel free to re-add and drop a note and we can work through any remaining issues. -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The copyvio text seems to have been removed, though might still be a good source for expanding the article. -- Beland (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. AIRcorn (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Dubwool
A Pokémon named Dubwool is based on the Jacob sheep. Can you mention it on this article? 174.24.112.230 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)