Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources

{| width="100%" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; padding:5px; border-bottom:1px solid #000; border-left:1px solid #000; border-right:1px solid #000; " cellspacing="5" valign="top"|
 * style="background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:0px" valign="top" |
 * style="background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:0px" valign="top" |

The objectives for establishing a guideline and a list of reliable sources for WP:WikiProject Dogs are to:
 * 1) identify reliable sources as opposed to unreliable or questionable sources - including but not limited to - clickbait and promotional sites, puppymills, and scam sites;
 * 2) establish minimum standards and provide clarity when defining a purebred dog breed as opposed to a dog type or a non-notable, unverifiable dog crossbreed;
 * 3) identify the recognized, reputable dog registries and kennel clubs which are working to develop or preserve a particular dog breed, as opposed to the for-profit, questionable registries or promotional dog breeder, puppy mill, or clickbait websites;
 * 4) identify questionable "designer" dog breeds and "rare" dog breeds being included as standalone articles on Wikipedia in order to legitimize and promote these for commercial gain.

Establishing notability
A dog breed, dog type or dog crossbreed is presumed to be notable if:
 * It is recognised by the FCI, any national kennel club affiliated with the FCI or one of the following kennel clubs not affiliated with the FCI:
 * The American Kennel Club
 * The Canadian Kennel Club
 * The Kennel Club
 * The United Kennel Club
 * It meets the requirements of Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Adding content

 * Kennel clubs are generally considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations, member clubs, and information about themselves such as the conditions of accepting a breed into their registry.
 * Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but corroboration by secondary sources is encouraged.
 * Sources should be considered reliable. If in doubt, seek consensus.

Reputable sources
WP:REPUTABLE advises that "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." This implies that if a source does not meet these two criteria then it fails the reputable test under WP:RELIABLE. Therefore, websites where content is provided without an author given fails the reputable test. Books written by an author who cannot show expertise in the field of their subject fails the reputable test (e.g. a photo-book compiled by a professional photographer who publishes on a number of different topics).

Importance of records and genetic ID

 * BBB scam article
 * This diff has links & info
 * Smithsonian re:misidentification of dogs
 * Nat-Geo includes stats
 * Ntl Canine Research Council explains further about misidentifying breeds (more links at site)

In addition to the above links, there is a Book Talk article that may prove useful: "The Most Feared Dogs May Also Be the Most Misunderstood", below the title it reads Many countries ban pit bulls as a dangerous breed but “there’s no science that bears that idea out,” says this author. Nat Geo. A particular quote by the author warrants consideration:

It is true that a century ago, there were bulldog x terrier crosses that were bred/developed specifically for pit fighting but that all changed when blood sports were outlawed. Modern dogs were developed with more focus on conformation, and with a different function from the way the respective breeds were used historically; they have not maintained their century-old heritage. Unfortunately, many are still misidentified as pit bull types for no other reason than looks. There are clandestine markets for fighting dogs - crime does exist - but if discovered, responsible breeders and breed registries take proper action against them, including banning those who are members and filing police reports on anyone who is engaged in such activity.

List of sources
See WP:RS as it explains judging reliability based on "context", and also see WP:Notability (web).

Potentially useful resources

 * Dog Related "Websites and Recommended Resources from A to Z", March 2018, Department of Animal Science, Cornell University. → Many of the organisations linked do not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:RELIABLE or WP:INDEPENDENT sources, and care should be taken with citing any of these organisations.

Unreliable or questionable sources
• 101dogbreeds.com

• allthingsdogs.com

• ''American Research Foundation (ARF)

• bulldoginformation.com

• canna-pet.com

• completedogsguide.com

• designerdoginfo.wordpress.com

• dogable.net

• dogappy.com

• dogbreedinfo.com

• dogbreedplus.com

• dogdisease.info

• doggiedesigner.com

• dogpage.us

• dogs.petbreeds.com

• ''dogsbite.org"

• dogster.com

• dogtime.com

• dogzone.com

• iams.com

• k9rl.com

• leashesandlovers.com

• mastiffdogssite.com

• mixbreeddog.com

• pawculture.com

• perfectdogbreeds.com

• petguide.com

• petpremium.com

• pets4homes.co.uk

• puppiesclub.com

• puppiesndogs.com

• puppy-basics.com

• puppydogweb.com

• retrieverbud.com

• scamperingpaws.com

• sittersforcritters.com

• teacupdogdaily.com

• thedogsjournal.com

• thegoodypet.com

• thegoldensclub.com

• thehappypuppysite.com

• thelabradorsite.com

• topdogtips.com

• vetstreet.com

• yourpurebredpuppy.com

Service dog scams

 * Service Dog Central
 * PBS crackdown on fake service dogs
 * Senate document - criminalization of fake service animals