Talk:Africanis

Copyright

Per article history, history information:

added by permission from Johan Gallant [gallant@iafrica.com], author of the book The Story of the African Dog - University of Kwazulu-Natal Press - ISBN 1 86914-024-9 (per Tbjornstad 08:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

I've just sent this email to specified address:

John: An anoymous user has added text from your book to the Wikipedia online public-domain encyclopedia with this note:

added by permission from Johan Gallant [gallant@iafrica.com], author of the book The Story of the African Dog - University of Kwazulu-Natal Press - ISBN 1 86914-024-9

The text currently appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanis

I need to confirm that, by permission, you mean that it's released either into the public domain or under the Gnu Free Documentation License, which is what all Wikipedia text is licensed under. You can read more about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL

Thanks for letting us know.

(I'm just one of thousands of volunteers on this project & I'm just trying to make sure that this isn't copyrighted material that you wouldn't want propagated or used elsewhere.)

Elf | Talk 21:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's his response--not clear on the public domain or GFDL, but that info is in my query, soo-----

Hello Ellen

Thankls for your message.

Tom Bjornstad requested information on the Africanis from me for Wikipedia.

I sent him text + photographs which may be published

Kind regards

Johan GALLANT

author

The Story of the African Dog

University of Kwazulu-Natal Press ISBN 1-86914-024-9 books@ukzn.ac.za

Africanis Society of Southern Africa

http://www.sa-breeders.co.za/org/africanis

Elf | Talk 15:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The information given in the article is Public Domain, but the pictures were not, so I din't upload to Commons. We may use them freely on Wikipedia though, but not elsewhere. If English Wiki have a licence they can use, go download the pictures from no:Africanis. - Tbjornstad 10:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that "There is ample evidence that no canine domestication took place in Africa" which is in fact contradicted by other articles in this category as well as by written evidence, and archaeological evidence. Doc Meroe 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Info Box

I was trying to update the info box, but my info didn't compe up. Why? Patricknoddy 2:52pm January 5, 2006 (EDT)

As it says at the top of the page when you edit it, See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dog_breeds#Infobox_Dogbreed_template for full explanation of the syntax used in this template. In wikipedia, templates have a predefined list of items that you can include. The dog breeds project has a very specific list of what it considers to be the major English-language kennel clubs, which are represented in the template. If you'd like to open this dicussion again (not sure it ever entirely closed) about how to choose what to list in the breed box, feel free to do so on the talk page for the WikiProject. And note that the breed standard is already listed in the external links. If you have any questions, you can contact me on my user talk page, although I sometimes don't check back for a couple of days. Elf | Talk 20:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The external link 'breed standard' does not work. It leads to a page where you have to log in.

Addressed to "Elf" and TBjornstad. These dogs, Africanis etc, please note they are not "breeds", they are not Sighthounds in any sense of the classic use of gazehound, greyhound etc. This category "Sighthound" has obviously become a List Farm. Some of the names are of historic, defunct, even non-existent breeds. The editors need to consider precisely what the difference is between Hound and Sighthound. Wikipedia should reflect reality, not create its own assumed "reality". In all cases where the use and function define a type, variety or breed - and that is always the case with hunting dogs or hounds - then the original use should be clearly provided and it should be verifiable. Please address these problems, such as the incongruity of having the Rhodesian Ridgeback and Podenco/Ibizan Hound in both the Scent Hound and Sighthound categories.

Furthermore, all hounds have a local origin, a Country Of Origin, consider the Saluki, Afghan, English Greyhound, Rampur, Borzoi, Chart Polski,etc. which makes your category of "Aboriginal dog" suspect. There is no national Kennel Club that makes that distinction, it is a non-existent and spurious category. Please reflect on exactly what you are doing and inform yourselves with the real facts, the real history. Thank you. --Richard Hawkins 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not "land races", but rather the very definition of "landrace"

It says "These types are not "land races" as dictated by the Africanis Society, but rather unique types developed for certain specific conditions, and that do exhibit differences in type one from the other." But the article landrace says that "A landrace is a local variety of a domesticated animal or plant species which has developed over time, by adaptation to the natural and cultural environment in which it lives". So the sentence makes no sense. Chrisrus (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

May I add a thought? 'Landrace' was a new term to me when I began researching native ponies, but it's entirely fit for purpose when describing various semi-feral equine species across the globe. However I share Chrisrus' doubt about its relevance with reguard to domesticated canines. Surely the UK Kennel Club (and I believe KC's of other countries) define breeds as 'unique types developed for certain specific condtions'? If this is the case, it seems unreasonable to class all domestic African dogs, whatever their phenotype, as 'land race' when other countries are allowed specific breeds. Just my opinion of course... -Neta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.92 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a landrace (or perhaps several, depending on definition). The efforts by one, possibly two, groups to establish standardized breeds from Africanis foundation stock doesn't change that, it simply introduces new subtopics. We cover all landrace-into-breed efforts the same way: write about the landrace, cover the breed as a subtopic (see, e.g., Aegean cat), unless and until the breed becomes fully recognized by international registries, in which case write about them the other way around (see, e.g., Manx cat, and any of a zillion dog breeds developed from local landraces such as the Samoyed). If the breed is firmly established, it is the main topic, as many people will have heard of it through breed books and such; if the breed[s] is/are not established, then treating them as anything but provisional attempts would violate WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL policy. Most attempts to establish new breeds fail, and WP is not in a position to declare success until the world declares success.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Declared "landrace" Breeds

I think we should have a discussion on this issue to avoid the same debate that we had on the Boerboel article, like the Boerboel the Africanis is a declared landrace breed under act 62 of 1998 AIA and IMO should be included in the article as such. I look forward to hearing your opinions wrt to the matter regardsJln115 | Talk

Hello Jln115, these dogs were by definition a landrace. Cavalryman (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC).

Yes 100 % agree!! hence I would like to propose we edit the opening paragraph from "The Africanis is a dog breed from a landrace of dogs that occur across southern Africa." to "The Africanis is a (declared South African)landrace dog breed that occurs across southern Africa" or something similar regardsJln115 | Talk

I would oppose that opening sentence, it has no merit outside of South African bureaucracy speak. Cavalryman (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC).

Regardless your opinion if its South African bureaucracy speak or not, It still is a declared landrace dog breed and should be included at least somewhere in the article imo. Jln115 (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but nowhere near the opening sentence. Cavalryman (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC).

Nope. The present text is fine. See thread above. The gist: This is landrace (or continuum of landraces), about which quite a bit has been written. There are some very provision efforts to attempt to establish one or more standardized breeds from them as foundation stock, but we have no idea whether these efforts will be successful beyond local (non-independent, primary-source) breeder claims. When something like FCI, AKC, and other major kennel clubs recognize them as an established breed, then we have sufficient sourcing to consider them a breed as well as a landrace (or rather that we have two very closely topics, historical landrace and recent breed, that are probably best covered in the same article).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Landrace vs Breed

I have been asked by the Chairperson of the Africanis Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) to correct the statement on this Wikipedia article, to the effect that the Africanis is either a breed or a developing breed. There is currently no breed standard or developing / emerging breed standard. The breed standard previously published by the Kennel Union of South Africa (KUSA) has been retracted at the request of ASSA. I have appended the KUSA letter below. When I try to correct the article leader, Cavalryman immediately undoes my change. Even if there were an Africanis breed under development, it should be given a sub-topic and certainly not be in the leading paragraph of this article.

---

From: Pascale Midgley [1]

Sent: Monday, 09 December 2019 08:01

To: Edith Gallant

Cc: Sheila Thornberry; Kyle Farmer; Dawn Rosier

Subject: RE: AfriCanis as an Emerging breed

Importance: High

Dear Mrs Gallant,

Chairperson AfriCanis Society,

We refer to your email of the 9 September 2019 requesting the withdrawal of the AfriCanis from the KUSA list of Breed Standards under the Emerging Breed Group.

This serves to advise that the Federal Council has acceded to your request and have given the KUSA Office a directive to remove the Africanis Breed Standard from the KUSA website and from the list of Breed Standards recorded in Schedule 2 Appendix A and D , as requested.

We trust that this will meet with your approval and meets the AfriCanis Society’s requirements.

Yours Sincerely,

Pascale Midgley

General Manager

KUSA is the internationally recognized registry for purebred dogs in Southern Africa.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokaapje (talk • contribs) 11:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bokaapje (talk · contribs), thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest with this article, I have left you a message on your talk page articulating what should do from here, basically you should stop make additions to the page itself and suggest amendments here on the article talk page.

I am afraid the above correspondence does not count for anything here on Wikipedia, everything on Wikipedia should be cited to reliable sources that preferably are independent of the subject. Whilst organisations such as the ASSA can be cited for discrete aspects of the topic, they are a primary source and do not trump reliable secondary sources for information about the topic. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC).

Dear Cavalryman (talk · contribs), thanks for your pointers, particularly appreciated as I am a Wikipedia newcomer. Please see my response to your post regarding the alleged conflict of interest, which I refute, on my talk page. I would like to point out that your proposed content, which states that the Africanis is a breed, is not supported by secondary sources, unless I'm mistaken. My concern here is that, based on my research, the Wikipedia page would be making an unsubstantiated claim that the Africanis is a breed. As another user pointed out previously on this talk page, any derived breeds would anyway be secondary to the landrace and require a sub-topic. Bokaapje (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are making edits at the behest of the ASSA you have a conflict of interest, and you have stated above that you are doing so.

I have just noticed that you have removed secondary sources from the article, I ask that you restore both the sources and what was cited to them, otherwise I will revert to the last version of the page that included that information. Cavalryman (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC).

Bokaapje, what you are trying to incorporate is original research and you have removed two reliable secondary sources that specify this is a breed developed from the landrace of dog found throughout southern Africa. The ASSA is not a reliable source for anything but their own activities, and whilst it remains published (which it does) the KUSA standard should and will remain linked in the article. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV, it is highly inappropriate to remove reliable secondary sources (Morris and Arman) that contradict your own point of view that is only supported by original research and flimsy primary sources. Cavalryman (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC).

From my point of view, it was never clear if the objective of this article was attempting to address a landrace, a "developing breed", or a combination of both, so I will allow you both to continue that discussion. However, I will certainly be stressing compliance with Wikipedia Policy WP:POL. My issues are:

1. the removal of correctly cited sources; I have no issue with the contrasting of differing positions taken by authors but these must be made looking from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV
2. claims which sources did not make, or stating dubious findings as if they were a matter of fact rather than elaborating that these were possibilities e.g. Gautier p620 "attribute canid cranial remains....with some hesitation to a dog" and dated 10,000-7,000 years old being stated that this was a dog dated 7,000 years old. (Note: The accepted fossil is 5,900 years old.) The Gallant reference has no page number, and what is claimed is to be weighed in the context that this is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source.
3. the use of Wikipedia to promote products (books, organisations) per WP:NOTPROMO

If WP:CONSENSUS cannot be reached, I encourage you both to seek a third opinion WP:3O. William Harris (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The answer is simple. There is no "breed" or "developing breed" of Africanis. Furthermore, breeds are inherently derivative to landraces. This isn't a matter of reasonable debate, it's scientific fact. I have spoken to KUSA who have removed their erroneous "breed standard", and you'll find that the links to a "breed standard" at KUSA are now broken. But I'm not going to make any more contributions because it is too frustrating to have them undone arbitrarily as you have done Cavalryman and William Harris. I object in particular to your edits and justifications for the following reasons:

1. You have removed several valid secondary sources (Gallant, van Schalkwyk, Coppinger and others)
2. The citation of reliable secondary sources does not constitute the promotion of products
3. This article should place and describe a variety of dog in the Linnean taxonomy, before promoting any status as a breed
4. There is no breed standard in existence for the Africanis, yet you keep changing this article to state that there is
5. You seem to be favouring or indeed promoting the views and products of the dog fancy hobby community over those of respected, peer-reviewed scientists
6. The accusations of conflict of interest and promotion of products are unjustified
7. Removing my entire edit to reinstate the two reference citations is to throw the baby out with the bathwater

Bokaapje (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Would a separate articles for the landrace and the breed, with a disambiguation page, perhaps be a solution? Bokaapje (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I shall not enter into a discussion of rhetoric point by point (we both know exactly what the score is here), but I furnish the following documentation from the KUSA Fedco Meeting in support of the breed standard being withdrawn - this is a WP:PRIMARY source that other editors can WP:VERIFY: https://www.kusa.co.za/index.php/documents/minutes-agendas/3023-2019-12-fedco-minutes

9.7. The AfriCanis Nguni dog

LW tabled a curiously indignant letter from Mrs Edith Gallant, objecting to the AfriCanis being identified as an emerging breed on the KUSA website, rather than as a landrace. On behalf of the AfriCanis Society, Mrs Gallant expressed the wish that the reference to the AfriCanis as an emerging breed be removed from the KUSA website.

Fedco considered the documentation and Mrs Gallant’s plea and it was decided, unanimously, to remove all references to the breed from the KUSA website.

Proposed JH, seconded GM

William Harris (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! Thank you for finding that User:William Harris. I wonder where the indignation comes from. To me, whether this or that kennel club chooses to create a breed standard and to name it Africanis or AfriCanis or Aeroplane for that matter, shouldn't really be an issue from the point of view of someone studying the landrace. Perhaps Ms Gallant foresees some knock-on effect... I don't have the time budget to look into it further though.

Bokaapje (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Another interesting question this raises is what aspect of the "documentation" mentioned caused KUSA to remove the references to the breed from the website... more generally, why did they withdraw the standard?

Bokaapje (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Cavalryman, on reflection I'd like to pursue our discussion of the breed vs landrace question, and its representation in this article, on two points: First, I believe the statement "These dogs are recognised as a single diverse breed" in "History" should be removed for these reasons:

1. Having reviewed the Armand article, I believe it was meant to support the previous sentence (regarding ASSA), and should be moved back to that sentence.
2. There is no breed, or developing breed, named Africanis, as per https://www.kusa.co.za/index.php/documents/minutes-agendas/3023-2019-12-fedco-minutes and http://www.fci.be/en/Nomenclature/ (KUSA is affiliated to the FCI). I hope we can agree that KUSA and the FCI together make a more reliable source than the "Dictionary of 1,000 dog breeds" book (Morris).

Second, as SMcCandlish pointed out above, several secondary sources support the fact that the name Africanis was coined to describe a landrace of dog. However, as an experienced editor of dog breed articles, how would you recommend structuring content respectively for a variety of animal and for a breed of animal with the same name? Sadly there doesn't seem to be a naming convention that reflects the distinction, as there is in the plant kingdom to distinguish cultivars from varieties. Bokaapje (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bokaapje, I am not adverse to replacing the word “breed” throughout the article, that is still consistent with the sources cited, clearly the last two sentences of the History section used to be one and someone split them. I am unsure what the FCI link above is supposed to show, but no I do not believe the FCI and KUSA combined are more reliable than a very well researched secondary source, I have seen too many errors from the former to accept anything they say beyond their own breed standards.

I do not know why you claim the KUSA standard link is broken, it works very well for me, but given the above I think it can be omitted:

I remain very sceptical of any attempts to introduce Gallant as a source, the author is too connected to the ASSA and further has previously attempted to promote their works on this page. The link to the ASSA at the bottom of the article is sufficient as the existence of the organisation is confirmed in two secondary sources. Cavalryman (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC).

Edits by Cadae9265

This earlier comment is relevant: "I'm not going to make any more contributions because it is too frustrating to have them undone arbitrarily as you have done Cavalryman and William Harris." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadae9265 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Cadae9265 (talk · contribs), everything we include here on Wikipedia should be cited to WP:Reliable sources, which has been the case on this page. As has been explained to you, your edits contradict those sources and you have not introduced any new sources to verify what you claim, without doing so your claims are WP:Original research, something that is prohibited here on Wikipedia. You may find Wikipedia’s standards frustrating or arbitrary, but they are applied across the encyclopedia. Cavalryman (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

There is clear evidence that William Harris and Cavalryman are the same person. This indicates a lack of faith in the person’s changes to good-faith edits on this page. This may be vandalism. I request that Wikipedia editors review all edits by William Harris and Cavalryman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cavalryman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadae9265 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Cadae9265, you are refusing to respond to legitimate concerns about your edits to this page, further accusations of sock puppetry without evidence is considered a personal attack, something that is taken seriously here on Wikipedia. As already said, can you provide any reliable sources that corroborate your amendments to the page and justify the removal of other content? Cavalryman (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

Apart from bordering on the paranoid, obfuscation of the topic is not helpful. William Harris (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)