Talk:Pye-dog/Archive 1

Older gene pools?
Is it meaningful to say that one gene pool is older than another? All gene pools go back to the beginning of life. What was really meant here? &#8212;Largo Plazo 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's make sure we understand...
This term was originally about the "street dogs" of India, and had negative connotations. Then, it was a generally recognized term for "street dogs" everywhere. Then, it became a technical term, with no negative feelings, for a particular dog type, referring to all kinds of "primitive dogs", a catagory of the dog show, such as "working dogs" or "terrier". It officially includes the breeds listed. Many of the dogs now considered "pariah dogs" (those in southeast Asia) have been shown to be genetically Canis lupus dingo, but the Pariah Dogs of India, those to whom the term was orignally applied, turned out to be Canis lupus familiaris, showing that what is true about one "breed" or landrace belonging to this dog type, is not necessarily true about any other. Is that how you all understand it? Chrisrus (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

temperment?
I think it would be nice to know the general temperment of these kind of dogs and how well they do in captivity when raised since they are puppies. (I think it would be good for the article as well as for my own personal curiosity...I am considering adopting a street dog when I go live abroad in Ecuador.) Saritamackita 09:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We picked up a couple of pariah-type dogs as puppies in Kenya when we lived there & brought them back with us to suburban Washington, DC when we returned. They are a bit undisciplined (our fault as much as theirs!), but they are obviously quite domesticable & trainable.... They're quite charming as pets & socialize well... 12.159.143.2 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it totally depends. I've seen research on the street dogs of Java, which are famous for being nearly undomesticatable, even when taken as puppies.  It seems to have something to do with whether they are C.l.familiaris, which seem to take better to domestication, while the C.l.dingo ones don't seem to have as much "pet dog" ancestors. Chrisrus (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Various meanings of pariah dog
I made an attempt to organize the various meanings (feral dog, subspecies of dog, purebred dog group) of "Pariah" into headings.--Hafwyn (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be useful. As a matter of fact, I think it's pretty bad that the term "feral dog" leads to this article as not all pariah dogs are feral and many ferals are not pariah dogs. At least not, when you count the pariahs as acertain group of dog types.--168.224.32.15 (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "pariah" should be taken back to it's original meaning "outcasts" and "feral" should refer to "any domestic dog that has gone wild". Each "breed" or "landrace" of canine should be treated separately and individually in their own article. For example, my life evolves around New Guinea Singing Dogs. NGSD are not considered "outcasts" or "feral" by most people but have nonetheless been mistakenly included in the pariah group by folks who don't know any better. There are definitely a number of different breeds and landraces that live on the periphery of human settlement and these may need to be described as feral and pariah since they are both outcasts and have gone back to a wild state. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to help a bit. I'm afraid the good faith edit about the subspecies was do to a misreading of the fact that some are C.l.familiaris while others are C.l.dingo, meaning that it's a group of dogs that a kennel club uses, like Toy dog, that doesn't even try to say that the dogs are all related any more than any two random dogs are related. They just needed a group to put all the primitive dogs and that's the name they used. I hope I've helped! Chrisrus (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the section "Varieties of pariah dogs", the last sentence in the paragraph contradicts the first sentence. I can delete or fix it if that's OK with everyone? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna fix it. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But not today. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a whack at the first part. Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks fine to me. A little hard to understand because the subject itself if confusing. But OK, I think. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerns
This entire article is unnecessary and incorrect. The name pariah has been generalized to include many breeds and types of Canis lupus dingo that should not be included. United Kennel Club is the one screwing things up with their classification. The rest of the registries and clubs have recognized and avoided the problem. This Pariah article should be short and sweet discussing the Indian dogs and making a statement to exclude all others. There is absolutely no proof that some of these breeds are\were feral and this article supports that falsehood. It is also contradictory to several other articles. I would like to propose deleting this article or at least severely rewriting it. osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be partly with the article, but partly with the United Kennel Club.
 * First, this article is about more than one referent, and that's not generally a good idea. Maybe it should be split.
 * Second, Maybe you could write the UKC and try to convince them to remove the New Guinea Singing Dog from the definition, but as long as they do, we have to say that the NGSD is a UKC Paraih dog.
 * Chrisrus (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Second sentence
The second sentence is a sweeping statement. Not all people, including registries and/or clubs refer to primitives or ancient breeds as pariahs. We understand that only UKC uses the term "pariah" as it does and that severe limitation has something to say about the universality of "pariahs" useage. The statement in it's unreverted form sounded as though the editor had something to sell, so if he/she is going to make a statement such as this he/she will need to back it up with a citation. The words "more broadly" sound awful anyway. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited the first three sentences back to United Kennel Club simply because it's the only statement that can be proven by citation at this point. Any broader, more inclusive statement would, it seems to me, have to have a reference. Any editor who can justify "a more broadly" use of the term "pariah" by other registries or clubs should do so with proper references, but in our opinion, editors should not simply make a controversial statement such as this based simply on opinion. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that how you all understand it? This term was originally about the "street dogs" of India, and had negative connotations. Then, it was a generally recognized term for "street dogs" everywhere. Then, it became a technical term, with no negative feelings, for a particular dog type, referring to all kinds of "primitive dogs", a catagory of the dog show, such as "working dogs" or "terrier". It officially includes the breeds listed. (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it officially includes all the breeds listed by United Kennel Club. Who else lists them this way? If they do then let's see a reference for them. That's all I'm saying. If we're talking opinions here, then my opinion is that yes, at one time people used the name pariah without much reservation to include a number of primitives, but nowadays people are reverting back to keeping the name reserved for the Indian dogs. My opinion. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

An apparently relatively well-done treatement of the topic - Indianpariahdog dot infor slash pariahdogs dot html
OSM: Thank you for your leadership in this article. The first problem I can see with it is that it says almost nothing about the first and primary referrent, the Indian Pariah Dog. Would you be interested in researching and writing the section on the IPD? It's a very important dog because there are many books and articles that talk about it; many people are interested in it for several reasons and this article says basically nothing about them. Here is what seems to be a good reference: http://www.indianpariahdog.info/pariahdogs.html. Could you summarize it and add the summary with this reference to the article? Thanks! 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus: Sure, I'll read it and get back with you. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus: We're gonna have to find references of higher quality. This is a fine reference if a person wants to just use a personal website as a reference. The article is well written but an opinion of an individual only. These folks apparently live in India and like Indian Pariah Dogs. They take care of a bunch of them. After reading the work, I have about 1,000 unanswered questions. I really wonder if maybe this wiki article should be about the Indian Pariah Dog and leave the others alone. What a mess, really. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's not the best, but it's the only source we have right now, and it's better than nothing. Do you think you could find something better?  At least those people seem to have a lot of experience with the dogs, it should be good enough to at least make a start. I like the system of organization they have there, we could use it as a model.They have a bias in favor of the dogs, whatever they interpret that to mean, so you have to keep that in mind. Of course, the best thing to do would be to google up a high quality source.  Poke around!


 * Yes, I agree. Maybe there should be a disambiguation page, and then one article per referent, but for the moment you could try clearly dividing this article into sections.  That way, we wouldn't have to worry about getting a new article beyond the speedy deletion guys before it's ready to pass that stage for sure. Chrisrus (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is my opinion
Chrisrus: First of all I am humbled by your request for me to work on this article. I don't believe you'll like what I think, however. I think this article should be about pariah dogs in general but I also think there should be another article strictly dedicated to the Indian Pariah Dog. I think the dog deserves its own place uncluttered by a bunch of controversial jargon. It's going to take a lot os study and research time on my part, but I think the two articles should be worked on simultaneously because of the sharing of information and references. Logic tells me its time saving, more efficient, and will make for more complete and organized articles if both are constructed simultaneously. To work on one at a time seems redundant and much harder to manage. As for speedy deletion, if editors see the articles are under construction they surely will recognize the efforts and lay off. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the use of the word "pariah" should be carefully limited to its proper use with specific "types" or breeds of dogs. "Feral" is another loosely used term. "Primitive or aboriginal" are more inclusive, but still limited. All these terms have to be defined and then and only then can specific dogs types or breeds be assigned to them. For example, are Carolina Dogs feral dingo types, but are they pariahs? Are they domestic dogs that have lived with and been bred by humans at some point? Are they domesticated dogs that went wild and thus became feral? Are they pariahs? What about AU Dingoes? Are they domesticated dogs who have gone wild? Well, ok, maybe so back a few thousand years. Were they ever dependent upon man for their survival or in fact did they ever give a hoot whether humans were around or not? See, these are the difficult questions to answer and not just to answer, but even to initially formulate. Then there's the act of finding supporting references and in the case or origins and pariahs, there are several views set forth by several authors. This is why I think the Indian Pariah Dog needs its own article that is free of this mess of opinions. Many of the authors have no real evidence. They just "think" that's the way it happened or the way it should be. Some authors are quite convincing as well. There are some definitions floating around and in common use so defining terms is probably not a big deal. Putting the right dogs in the right definition is the tricky part and the tough one to support with sound references. But the thing is, all the terms are tied together so that when a person talks about "pariah" they also must talk about "ferals" and "mongrels" and "hybrids" and "dingo-types". You can't just talk "pariah" without getting into all the others as well. The very first thing we're going to have to do is define"pariah" and I mean define it well and back it up with references. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok! Good idea.  You could do like Mario does, maybe, and start a "Indian Pariah Dog" on your user page, maybe?  Then there could be another article on the UKC's "Pariah and Primitive Group", later.  But you are totally right, the first thing is the Indian Pariah Dog, I agree.  It's a very important and interesting dog and deserves an article of it's own just like any other dog.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus: I would like to write these articles, but really, I don't have the time needed to produce articles that would do justice to the subject. As we go into Fall time will become more and more precious. I would be glad to give another editor a small amount of help, but I don't feel right being the main author. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I have decided not to pursue the editing or creation of any articles other than New Guinea Singing Dogs. Another annoying experience today and at my age I really don't need the high blood pressure. I consider you and several others on wiki as friends although we have never met and I support my friends, so if you ever feel that I might be able to answer a question or know of a source or something, please ask. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Division?
Should this article be divided into two or more articles? It seems like we have more than one referent here, and when we have more than one thing by the same name, it's customary to have more than one article, and then maybe a disambiguation page to help sort them out. Just a thought! Chrisrus (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pack dogs??
Chrisrus, Would you say that pariah dogs form packs? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says so at the end, second to last sentence, but it's not cited. The author seems to otherwise know what s/he is talking about, so I suppose s/he should know, and it does not conflict with genarally accepted belief that all dogs tend to form them, so I see no reason to doubt it.  Why do you ask? Chrisrus (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wondered what you thought about it. New Guinea Singing Dogs don't form packs. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Research
I noticed mention of this referent in three different types of sources.

The oldest sources may I found using Google Books search. These seemed to be the work of English language travel logs, "My Trip to India and What I learned there" or some such. Some of these were pretty impressive as reliable sources as they were written by highly educated people from respected universities and presented as factual accounts, but betrayed an imperialist tone at times. They are not free of value judgement.

Google scholor also provides some of the same but also much modern research. Experts interested in the evolution of the dog are interested in the what these dogs can teach us about the animal. It seems that the dog may have evolved twice, once in Eastern Asia, and once again in Western Asia. If not that, then some kind of clade may exist there. The Indian Pye dog gives these researchers important clues. I think this may have resently been settled; I will try to find it but there was some pretty big news recently and they seem to have figured something interesting out, and the genetics of the Indian Pye Dog seem to have played no small role in the process of doing so.

Then there are many sites you can find on a normal google search. From there, I have learned that there are a group of people who, unlike the old sources, have found much to admire in the Indian Pye Dog. These people find them to be a fine animal which makes a great pet. They are genetically free of diseases typical of inbred "purebred dogs", for one thing, and tend to be mentally very balanced and submissive. Generations on the street have taught them to be intellient and independant. These people pretend no lack of bias, but can be counted on to accurately inform us of facts about the dog.

Then there is a problem. There term "Pariah dog" does not necessarily refer to the same referent as it used to. Some Kennel Club has co-opted the term to refer to a class of dog in the Phrase "Pariah and Primitive". It's a category of dog that serves as sort of a "Catch-all" for dogs that result from local landraces in different parts of the world, all of which tend to look somewhat alike, possibly because they are all related or possibly because, when left to breed "randomly", dogs all tend to revert back to a dingo-like form, or possibly because they are actually closely related. This brings us back to the modern research I talked about above. This Kennel club is catagorizes dogs by type, but it seems to have turned out that the similarities between the Canan Dog and the New Guinea Singing Dog and the Besenji and the Carolina Dog and so on may have turned out to be a result of convergent evolution instead of common descent.

I hope this helps! Thank you again for your interest in this referent and contributions to this article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Long-term pariah dog morph found in pictures from Wikipedia Commons
Which pictures illustrate the phenomenon best?

"Mongrels the world over are said to exhibit the "pariah morph" to the extent that they resemble the Indian pariah dog."

"Long Term Pariah Morph" -- WTF does it mean?
Nowhere is an attempt made to define LTPM, even though apparently dogs and breeds can be evaluated as to whether they fit into it. "Morph" means shape, and I'm guessing "Long Term" refers to an inherited rather than a instantiatial form, but what is it, and how does it differ from say the "Spitz" form? 172.5.154.148 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for your interest in improving this article. Dogs are said to exhibit the LTPM to the extent that they resemble the Indian Pariah Dog, as the section says, and then there's a picture.  Apparently, if dogs are allowed to live and breed naturally in this niche, they tend to revert back to this primal form, although I suppose it would depend on the climate and whatnot. It's basically a very ordinary mongrel-looking dog of the general spitz-type.  I don't know to distinguish it from other spitz-types, except to say that, while all LTPM dogs are spitze, not all spitze are LPTM.  If you would, see if searching for the phrase in quotes in Google Scholar produces any results that we can cite to describe the anatomical specificities of the LTPM in detail. Chrisrus (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)