Talk:The Intelligence of Dogs

Is the list out of date?
I believe Coren released an updated book with different rankings, including new breeds that are recognized now but weren't in 1994. I think the list on this page should be updated to reflect that. --Webbess10 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Criticism not NPOV
While dog intelligence as a whole can be disputed, the criticism section for this article needs to be rewritten to cite sources which claim these ideas. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the section & merged some of it into dog intelligence. Elf | Talk 17:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This wiki is summarizing a book, which will have a POV according to its author. Critics of the book are welcome, please put that at the bottom, but revising the book’s message to make it more neutral is not the goal here, it’s to accurately reflect what the book says – for good or bad, regardless if you like it or not.  For example, the wiki page on Hitler’s book Mein Kampf does not attempt to teach a neutral or political correct view when it restates Hitler’s message.  Similarly, you should not attempt to make this book on dog intelligence more politically correct, you should say only what is, not what ought to be.Jadon (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody is trying to claim "what it ought to be", but it's natural for an article with any important claims or theories in it to have sections on "reception" and "criticism". I think this article really needs a section with "criticism", and I have no ulterior motives for saying this but a balance with some other expert pointing out some things about the theory or the methodology or how it could be misinterpreted etc. Anonywiki (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The "Evaluation" section references citations that it implies are favorable to acceptance of this type of survey "research", but, in fact, are hostile to it. I just checked several and I have Miklosi's Dog Behaviour Evolution and Cognition, which blasts this type of research (see page 52 of the 2nd edition). The earlier version even called out Coren's bad survey data, but the current version interestingly removed mention of him in the text (wasn't worth it?). He instead appears in the Further Reading section. Also agree that this seems promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErgodicGeorge (talk • contribs) 01:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Doubting veracity
Removed this comment from the article:

Stanley Coren is somewhat infamous for making up some of his "research," particularly in his book/novel THE LEFT-HANDER SYNDROME. Nothing he has to say about dogs should be taken without a large, very large grain of salt.--Lee Charles Kelley 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's some reliable reference that can be cited to this effect, it's worth a note in the article. Elf | Talk 20:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * actually, if it is about other books than this, it belongs in the article about Coren. Be absolutely certain in meets the BLP requirement of being published in an unquestionably RS--such accusations are considered potentially libelous. DGG (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this purely promotion?
Sounds like it. How is does someone presume intelligence of any creature is directly related to it's ability to follow a command? --Precaryus (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem is that it's not encyclopedic, but just a resume of a book that's on the market. POV all over. I think it should be deleted. Tony 13:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr. Coran has made the subject of the book one of the major parts of his reseach. This book is one of the major results of that.  It is probaly where most folks first learn of the subject  cmacd 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is even mistitled. this is more about obediance then anything. I had a Basset hound that developed several ways to fool us and our other dog, but she never followed a command unless she felt like it. 66.162.99.98 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Nicholas


 * If you see that, why not add a contoversy section, and find some critics to cite to balance it out? The book does decribe his test methods and (to me) they do sound like intelignce tests, rembering that most dog swill not fill in little black circles on a mark-sense sheet.  I run both a border Collie and a spaniel in agility and they perform in line with Coran's ranking..Unfortunatly as the spaniel is my main agilty dog...cmacd 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By his own admission, Mr. Coren's book does not consist of research in the traditional sense. Mr. Coren states that he initially intended to perform a broad study of the intelligence of dogs, and he does attempt to quantify valid interpretations of how such a subject could be measured. Ultimately, he deemed the pursuit to be too expensive and settled instead for a very limited poll of dog trainers. The responses of his poll could be considered anecdotal at best, and certainly subjective. Note that the breeds that appear toward the top of the list are also those that the dog trainers acknowledge as being exposed to the most. Dogs with owners who are predisposed to seeking professional training are most likely to appear in the "most intelligent" sections of his list. Additionally, the criteria provided to the trainers is extremely limited - as he acknowledges - and is not a universally recognized measure of intelligence. This article lacks the most basic requirements for notability on Wikipedia. Briantresp (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you seem to be arguing that the work isn't valid--find some published reliable sources that say so, and add them. Your own opinion here doesnt amount to evidence. When it is valid or not is totally unrelated to notability at wikipedia. See WP:THUTH.  DGG (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that the work IS valid? The references are mostly somewhat negative book reviews. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Following Tony's logic we'd have to remove virtually all book pages. This article is as valid as any article about any other book, heck even Hitler's Mein Kampf has its own page - and none of us would agree that it's views are "valid". You're misunderstanding what actually is the purpose of an encyclopedia, it's to be informative. Look at all massive so-called "promotional" articles on books by Steve King, the millions of articles on music albums, films, or even video games like skyrim. If we should remove this article because it's promotional, why don't we removed this one as well? The Road Please do not delete content simply because you don't like what it says, perhaps you can't handle that it's calling your dog dumb so you want it removed - how petty. Jadon (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Dog intelligence
Why should there be two articles on a topic so similar? In such a way it could seem less a "promotion" and more a scientific appendix to the mentioned article. --YoavD 08:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * one is on the subject, the other is about an actuall book on the subject - I could see renaming this to the interegence of dogs (book) if that would make it clearer? cmacd 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I say don't merge. It's important to have an article that is about dog intelligence in general, even if somebody editing that article decides to use the book that this one is about as a reference. I think simply renaming this article as Cmacd123 suggested is a great idea (minus the spelling mistakes, of course:)). In fact, I think I'll "be bold" and go ahead and do that. Buck Mulligan 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, it seems I don't know how to rename this page. When I figure out how to do it, I will. Buck Mulligan 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a merge is a good idea. As cmacd pointed out, one article is about the subject of dog intelligence and the other is about a book. Since it's been over a month since the merge was proposed, I've removed the notice. — Elembis (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article needs renaming badly. Now it is referred outside of wikipedia as list and order of intelligence of dogs, which it is not. Article Dog intelligence says that "Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems". Methods used in this book study only ability to learn, while solving problems is ignored and blind obedience is hardly a measure of thinking, but rather opposite of it. --80.223.114.31 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I could see a rename to The Intelligence of Dogs (book) although that is generaly only done for disambiguation. The name space The Intelligence of Dogs could then be a disambiguation page pointng to this page, and the page about dog intelignce.cmacd 12:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hardly think "blind obedience" is a detraction from intelligence. Japanese artisans learn to craft their wares through blind repetition of age old methods. Once that is mastered then, experimentation can begin. Obedience is more of a potential avenue knowledge and wisdom. Both of which I agree are not necessary for intelligence. Since intelligence is the innate ability to learn and think. PedanticSophist (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

On the list, someone switched 2 and 6 from what the author wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.49.215 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the book is notable, which seems abundantly clear from the NYT reviews, it should not be merged. We geenrally don't do that. DGG (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we rename the title of this wiki to something like "Book: The Intelligence of Dogs" ? Because this has very very little to do with intelligence (the book is misleadingly titled, 'intelligence' should be replaced by 'obedience' or 'willingness to obey').
 * Consider: If the author's testing methodology was applied to humans; he would stand in the middle of a bridge with a group of people standing in line, he would tell each of them to 'Jump.' The ones that plummeted to death with little to no encouragement would be labeled as the most intelligent of our species, those who needed to be dragged to the edge and thrown off are idiots... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.142.10 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of notability guideline
This article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Please reference: Notability (books)

As mentioned above, this article will be merged with Dog Intelligence unless some demonstrable addition is made to conform to the notability guideline. Briantresp (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to spam some links here to prove media coverage that should verify the notability:


 * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E2DA163BF936A35755C0A962958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


 * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE7DC1F3DF930A35754C0A962958260


 * http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5513441_ITM paywalled, but the snippet indicates it's specific to the book)


 * Unfortunately, the majority of the 169 Google News Archive hits for the book are paywalled, but the articles are found in major newspapers across the U.S. and even into Australia. I think the New York Times covering it - twice - probably gives a pretty solid assertion of notability.


 * Oh, and I'm curious about the suggested merger to Dog intelligence, which appears to be proposed to merge with Dog training. Eh? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You present multiple issues. First, your references for claim of notability are reviews or synopses of the book, which are not sufficient signs of notability on their own. The following is clearly stated in the first criteria of Notability (books) - which is the only criteria approached by this article: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." But if they were sufficient, they should be presented in the article. In its current state, this article has no third party sources or references that lend credibility to the suggestion that it is notable, and certainly not encyclopedic. One could speculate that this article is promotional material for the book, but at best it appears to be a brief synopsis of the book.


 * Regarding my proposal to merge this article with Dog_intelligence, this would at least enable the book's content to be presented in support of another, broader article. However, that article has problems, too, since it relies on very few sources, this book being one and the others tending to lean toward other subject matter (as noted in-line). Between The Intelligence of Dogs and Dog intelligence and the Stanley Coren article, we seem to be approaching circular references. The sources and the content of the Dog_intelligence article tend toward training methodology, training aptitude, training success, Conditioned response, and Emotion in animals; I propose merging it into Dog_training. Briantresp (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I"ll insert information from the NYT reviews when I get the opportunity. The simple fact here is that the book has had substantial outside coverage in the media, far beyond what is recorded in the Google News Archive reference noted, and thus easily clears the notability requirements. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reviews or synopses of a book does not make it notable, and even if the NY Times reviews you mention were applicable, there must be multiple independent examples of such references to approach notability. This article appear to be vanity to me. Note that the original proposal to merge this article with Dog intelligence was made in January 2007. Other posts here question whether or not this article is promotional. Without considerable clean-up, it will continue to appear so. Briantresp (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony asked me to take a look at this from a outside view, and I have to agree with Tony that based on both news.google.com hits, Google Scholar hits, and other general searching, the book has sufficient evidence of notability that is not presently in the article to meek WP:BOOK - the book appears to be an authority from these sources on dog intelligence. This also extends to Coren's article - as author of an authoritative book in the field, but again those sources are not presently cited.  Yes, the references need to be added to the article, but just a casual search shows that clearly they exist.
 * I should point out that both the book and the author meed the General Notability Guideline - significant coverage in secondary sources, so even if WP:BOOK or WP:PROF is not exactly met, the general notability guideline is clearly shown. --M ASEM 05:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While both may seem to meet the General Notability Guideline, I disagree with you that evidence of such presently exists in the articles. As you state, both articles should be revised to include appropriate references to prove the appropriate notability for the subjects. My comments have been based on the content of the article, and my primary goal is to prompt proper revision of them to meet minimum requirements for encyclopedic information.


 * That said, I haven't found what I would consider to be sufficient evidence in other resources that this book is actually considered an authoritative work. Anecdotal, yes, but as such it is more appropriate as a component of a larger article on the subject. This goes back to the merge proposals that have been here since January 2007. I hope to see the articles updated appropriately, and I will edit them with citations I find, too. Briantresp (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I cant see what people can possibly be objecting to--two full page NYT articles about the book are an undoubted proof of notability. They would be for any book at all, academic or otherwise. Just add them to the article, with one sentence quotations from each..  I understand some people object very strongly to the bopok';s thesis, so there  are undoubtredly other reviews as well.  I'm a little puzzled at all this. It should be a snow keep at afd. DGG (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Very notable as discussed above. Distinct from the intelligence as it's a book. While it could be merged, it's referenced in thirty-three breed-specific articles and the Obedience training article as well, which attest to its notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Don’t forget that this is a very obscure subject area of research in the first place, it’s not expected to be a major best-seller like a Steven King novel. Wiki is full of academic nitch book articles (particularly in the social sciences), the popularity of a book should be weighed against its subject material, and clearly this book is notable enough to warrant a page.Jadon (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Saluki
I doubt that Saluki is so obedient and such a good working dog as listed here. Same as Kuvasz Australian Shepherd and Pointer? Hm. This is not my experience of this dog breed.

Warrington (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Speak to the author of the book. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction
The least intelligent dog at the bottom of the list appears to be a woman named Kendra. I think this needs to be corrected... unless there's a species of dog named Kendra

Atom 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad Title for this Article
This article is not about the intelligence of dogs. It's about a book with that title. The name of this article should be "Stanley Coren's book about the Intelligence of Dogs".

And obedience has little to with intelligence. If a human being was completely obedient we would probably treat him or her for mental illness. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We've just seen an example of the list of "Ranking of dogs by breed" edited by someone who is not the author of the book. Exactly what is this article? If it's about the book, and the "Ranking of dogs by breed" is the author's list, from his book, it should never change. What's going on? Perhaps the list needs to be recopied from the book (or would that be a breach of copyright?) and somehow locked for all time. And perhaps the article lead needs to make the purpose of this article even clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Protection?
Been noticing over the course of some time that I've been watching this page, that quite often someone comes along and changes the list on this page. And the response always is something like, "This list is from the book it should not change". So if this list is static and we keep having people trying to chnage the list. Maybe we should get this page under semi-protection or at the very least a pending-changes protection? Protection_policy PedanticSophist (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it's not really appropriate to use semiprotection for that. Pending changes is, as far as I know, back to 'pending' at this point. It's not a major volume of vandalism - those of us watching it can manage it. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Obedience versus actual intelligence
I've noticed that this list is not synonymous with the basis for which actual pet owners judge their pets... Since when does obedience make the dog smarter? A smart dog isn't necessarily one that's obedient. I believe this article completely stirs confusion when it comes to actual intelligence. There are many breeds that are extremely disobedient but qualify as very intelligent (such as delivering items, locating certain items from under the ground, rescuing humans, searching and retrieving based on scent, and aiding to service the less fortune or handicapped/blind)... These are the basis for which actual judgment should be made. Obedience is but one facet of judging a dog's intelligence; it isn't the end-all be-all of whether or not an animal is intelligent. For example, the poodle is listed as one of the smartest dogs... but there are many things that a bulldog (listed as one of the less intelligent) can do that a poodle cannot. The very fact that I see a dog such as the Siberian Husky (my personal favorite breed) to be in the 40's [mediocre] already proves to me that this is an extremely fundamentally flawed mentality in terms of judging a dog's intelligence. We all know dogs go to special training and even have competitions and what not, but that isn't the only way we see a display of intelligence. True intelligence comes in the form of, but not limited to, the dog's abilities. One dog may be capable of tampering with a refrigerator and successfully open it, take out what it wants, and run off with the item. This is, generally speaking, a more intelligent action. Then there's a dog that just sits there when told to do so... this is just plain obedience. There's a clear cut difference between obedience and intelligence. I think that the primary problem with this specific article in this regard is that it doesn't list the dogs based on actual intelligence, but primarily focuses on their sheer obedience. I need a slew of actually learned people; those who have a clear knowledge of understanding and interpreting canine behavior to help clarify the very incorrect notions that are being expressed through this article. There is a great profound truth to seeking actual intelligence... and as a lover of philosophy, I have yet to find a solid basis of interpreting true intelligence as opposed to obedience and training. I've had quite some experience with numerous breeds of dogs... there are some that are obedient and some that remain instinctual. I prefer the latter. Siberian Huskies are my favorite breed... but it goes beyond the fact that they aren't as obedient as a poodle. Of course they are extremely beautiful in their exterior design, but that is besides the point. They are hard-working, capable of learning and exploring, and exert their actually wild instincts to the extent that a poodle can never even dream to do so. The only other animal I've found to be remotely as devoted to the pack mentality is the wolf, which is, coincidentally, my favorite animal. Balto carried medicine back and forth in a dangerous life-threatening icy tundra to save the lives of hundreds... Laika flew to outer space and was prepped with the necessary components for research... and a poodle sat when told to do so. This article is so biased, it's not even funny. - Zarbon (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep i heavily disagree. But dont get rid of the page my good sir. Ur so biased its absolutely anything but. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarbonholio (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Taken from the intro of the article.
 * "Based upon previous research, Coren recognizes that intelligence has a variety of different dimensions. Coren writes of three such dimensions: instinctive intelligence, adaptive intelligence, and working and obedience intelligence.[5] Instinctive intelligence refers to a dog's ability to perform the tasks it was bred for, such as herding, pointing, fetching, guarding, or supplying companionship.[5] Adaptive intelligence refers to a dog's ability to solve problems on his own.[5] Working and obedience intelligence refers to a dog's ability to learn from humans.[5]"
 * This wikipedia article is about a book called "The Intellience of Dogs" by Stanley Coren. This is a not a general article on dog intelligence. You obviously have some personal bias here. The position of these dogs is correct in terms of their working/obedience intelligence. The article also recognizes in a couple of places the scope of this ranking and it's diadvantages and flaws. But you will also note that at the end of the article under the "Evaluation" section the article reads, "In addition, measurements of canine intelligence using other methods have confirmed the general pattern of these rankings[13] including a new study using owner ratings to rank dog trainability and intelligence." So chances are with other ranking measurements your Husky is around 40 in the list too (though I can not say with certainty). PedanticSophist (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I should also note that there is another wikipedia article called Dog intelligence that should be taken as a general article on the subject. PedanticSophist (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be very, very, very, very, very, very, very careful before accusing others of "personal bias" of any sort. After all a person has already made their decision on what to say, they are doing so in their best judgement. I have no ulterior motive whatsoever, after all my dog was placed very high on the list (while another dog I had that was legitimately stupid was placed very low down). So if there's any way I should be biaesd, it's the exact opposite. The fact is that this whole thing is stupid. If he wants to rank dogs by trainability, that's fine. However claiming that one breed of dog is more "intelligent" than another needs to have a section about people being critical of it. Dismissing all arguments contrary to your own in any subject as "oh well you're just sour grapes" is ridiculous. Anonywiki (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Re removal of (most of) Coren's rankings list
Re this removal. I probably didn't make myself clear in the edit summary - it wasn't a question of whether Coren's opinions are valid; it's a question of copyright. By including the rankings in their entirety, the article probably violated Non-free content, which reads "The following is a non-inclusive list of examples where non-free content may not (emphasis added) be used outside of the noted exceptions: … 5 ) A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner." This issue came up just a day or two ago with regard to several 'List of..." articles up for deletion. I asked at the Copyright cleanup noticeboard about it, and you can see admin Moonriddengirl's reply here . It's possible that even listing the top 10 isn't compliant, but since it seems a gray area just yet, I think we could let those stay. Coren writes in his own book Born to Bark that "The whole list that ranks dog intelligence was published in USA Today and in the lifestyle and science sections of many other papers." . He doesn't seem to object to it there, but maybe they asked for his permission? In short - this is about staying on the safe side of the Foundation's interpretation of Fair use. Novickas (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Understandable, and I'm no great legal mind here, but a consensus from the discussion you linked and through your edit seems to have not been reached. My understanding is legal council is being sought for this question. Also, there is some debate over what is acceptable and what isn't when showing the whole list. The only reason I undid your change was because it made more sense from a user-oriented standpoint to not alter anything until a decision or a rule that can be debated here is made. Since the owner has not made any complaints and I believe this whole list has been around for a few years, we're under no legal threat at the moment. I can see keeping a partial list until a decision is made though. And if that's the case, I'd say keep the top ten, and then keep the top five from each category (or any other combination of numbers). I think it's worthwhile and under the the idea that an incomplete list may be acceptable, to give examples for book's divisions. Either remove all, partial, or none; I think it's best to wait for a consensus for those discussions. I'll certainly check back later tonight on the discussions to see if something's been reached. PedanticSophist (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for more opinions at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems. Novickas (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me consensus has been established: The WMF lawyer has clearly stated she considers it a problem and Articles for deletion/100 Greatest TV Moments closed as delete all. I am not aware of any ongoing discussions on the topic, could you point me to them? Yoenit (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, it can be hard to figure out consensus here sometimes, but I'll take most of the list out - shall replace with a prosified mention of the top five. Thanks. Novickas (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was directed here from a note at the Copyright talk. I agree the entire list should not be in the article. Novickas' idea to use prose is good and within fair-use IMO. Text similar to the last sentence in the Methods section would suffice.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't believe I missed this discussion. The article as it stands looks fine, and at least we wont' have to deal with meatheads swapping their favourite breed into the top spot over and over again now. (Mostly.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just reverted. I agree the list is a bad idea.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Dec 19 - 2011 After having this page published with the full list for years wouldn't it be wise to not modify the list until clarification is given by legal counsel? It is my understanding that no complaint has ever been received by the copyright owner and that it's not even clear if copyright has been infringed. It seems absurd to be removing the list after having it published on Wikipedia for years, all without any complaint from the copyright owner. Obviously the copyright owner is in no rush to have his list removed or he would of contacted Wikipedia years ago, seeing as it's the number 1 ranked Google search for "Dog Intelligence", unless he lives in a cave, I think he is aware. Why not wait for legal counsel to advise if copyright is being infringed and only then make a modification if needed or if the copyright owner contacts Wikipedia, why the rush after years... I think it is wise to wait. If you disagree feel free to remove the list but I think that would be a disservice to the Wiki community after having this page ranked 1 on Google and referenced by many other webpages, especially when no complaint has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantanyuser (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed a small part of the list until clarification is given by legal on the copyright issue but unless anyone here is a legal expert on the matter or has received a complained by the copyright owner, I still stand behind my original thought, that after having the list published on Wikipedia for such a long time it's worth waiting for expert legal opinion before removing the complete list. Why rush to such a major revision now when no complaint has been received... Surely it can wait until an expert opinion is given. --Cantanyuser (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it scientific?
I'm curious that its method is just based on "Coren sent evaluation requests to American Kennel Club and Canadian Kennel Club obedience trial judges, asking them to rank breeds by performance, and received 199 responses" is valid as a research. A true science experiment should be done in enclosed, totally controlled environment that ensures all variables are equal--Not asking someone else. What the authors doing maybe is just "survey" but cannot be an encyclopedic reference unless accompanied by "Statistically saying..." (the last sentence is just my opinion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlazingTrail (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are what WP considers reliable sources out there that discuss the scientific or unscientific (statistical) nature of the scores, it would be OK to put something about that in here, but WP editors' assessments of that wouldn't be OK; that would be WP:Original Research. It's possible that there were some but most of the coverage took place a while ago and is now pay-to-view. Novickas (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's funny here is that this book is pretty much Original Research itself, apart from how people went out and bought it. Anonywiki (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only is it not scientific research, I don't even think it would count as a scientific poll, given the tiny sample size. It's the very definition of cargo cult science. 66.27.174.138 (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not scientific research. Then again, that by itself has never prevented something from being put on Wikipedia. It's in the zeitgeist and not blatantly wrong, and that's good enough.
 * The problem is in the source book's definition of intelligence, how many tricks a dog is willing to learn, how quickly and how reliably (the average cat would come in with an IQ of zero.)
 * Nor is any of this original research in the meaning of Wikipedia's prohibition. We who write on Wikipedia may not publish our research here, scientific or otherwise.
 * Everything we write about on Wikipedia, from the Pythagorean theorem to the Peter Principle, was somebody's original research. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research
The evaluation section contains "there was much media attention and commentary both pro[10] and con.[11]", where [10] and [11] are examples of positive and negative commentary. This is a form of original research, as neither source supports the claim "there was much media attention and commentary both pro and con". The next sentence is even worse. Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of complete intelligence ranking
After having this page published with the full list for years wouldn't it be wise to not modify the list until clarification is given by legal counsel? It is my understanding that no complaint has ever been received by the copyright owner and that it's not even clear if copyright has been infringed. It seems absurd to be removing the list after having it published on Wikipedia for years, all without any complaint from the copyright owner. It would seem that the copyright owner is in no rush to have his list removed or he would of contacted Wikipedia years ago, seeing as it's the number 1 ranked Google search for "Dog Intelligence", unless he lives in a cave, I think he is aware. Why not wait for legal counsel to advise if copyright is being infringed and only then make a modification if needed or if the copyright owner contacts Wikipedia, why the rush after years... I think it is wise to wait. If you disagree feel free to remove the list but I think that would be a disservice to the Wiki community after having this page ranked 1 on Google and referenced by many other webpages, especially when no complaint has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantanyuser (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed a small part of the list until clarification is given by legal on the copyright issue but unless anyone here is a legal expert on the matter or has received a complained by the copyright owner, I still stand behind my original thought, that after having the list published on Wikipedia for such a long time it's worth waiting for expert legal opinion before removing the complete list. Why rush to such a major revision now when no complaint has been received... Surely it can wait until an expert opinion is given. --Cantanyuser (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cantanyuser, please leave the list up. This is fair use, and similar content listings, chapter summaries, and cliff note synopses exist for thousands of books, films, plays, games, etc. throughout all of Wikipedia.  I think the real reason this content is being challenged by readers is because perhaps it insults the intelligence of their Chihuahuas.  Regardless if you like the content or not, the book is noteworthy enough to be referenced by an encyclopedia, take Hitler's Mien Kampf for example, we don't think it's claims are valid, yet it has a massive wiki page that has a detailed chapter listing and content analysis. Jadon (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need anticipate any complaints from that book's author over copyright ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the last/lowest intelligence category (as a stub), and a reference to where the complete list can be found, so that people don't think that Chihuahuas, Lhasa Apsos, and Bullmastiffs are the dumbest dogs on the planet. NCdave (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Which Mastiff
The list includes Mastiff, but there are a lot of varieties. Need to try to figure out which he's referring to. If I remember, I'll check the book later. Elf | Talk 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Numerical order
Can you please repair the retarded numerical order? If there are 2 or more dogs tied at one place, you must reflect that in next place number. For example:

1. dog A dog B (tied)

3. dog C

dog C is not second brightest dog, but third brightest dog, because there are 2 brighter dogs than him

So Afghan hound should be 141th or so, not 79th! This way we do not even know how many dogs are in the list.

I am 37 years old, using this logic I am 37th youngest person on Earth, because there are only 36 younger people

Has this list experienced any updates? It appears to be rather outdated. Carolynweekes (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Corrected! Orlando the Cat (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalizm
Someone replaced several breeds with Jack Russell Terrier. 170.10.248.155 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes_check.svg I've reverted the change. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Error?
It appears to be an error to have "Australian Shepherd" listed as both 42nd and 69th. Mrpaulin (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This list definitely doesn't match Coren's original, which is ranked from 1 to 79 with some ties (see https://archive.org/details/intelligenceofdo00core/page/182/mode/2up). According to the page history, User:Orlando the Cat "fixed the list" in 2017 by changing all the line breaks into new list bullets, obliterating all tied ranks in the process while leaving each sub-list's start number unchanged. Another editor later fixed that by renumbering all the breeds from 1 to 137. This needs to be numbered back to match Coren's original list, which should be easier now that it's a table.

And yes, Australian Shepherd is there twice, in what looks like a side-effect of the renumbering: Coren puts it at 42, tied with the Kuvasz, and those two breeds become 68/69 if you renumber the list to 137 breeds. It appears a later editor noticed that the Australian Shepherd wasn't in its correct position at 42, and couldn't see it anywhere near 42, so re-added it to the list there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The table has now been changed to match Coren's original list, with 79 rankings including multiple ties. Snowbelle08 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250H VL1
— Assignment last updated by Mgferris13 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)