Talk:Australian Cattle Dog/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Consensus

• Over 700 editors contributed to the Australian Cattle Dog article over time on a consensual basis. The version that was nominated for FA represented consensus on all sections including Temperament and had been stable for the two years since it was rated GA.
• Around 15 reviewers over a three month period assessed the article against FA criteria, asking for dozens of changes, but with no one suggesting that the coverage was biased or incomplete and no one requesting that aggression be highlighted.
• Between 2,500 and 3,000 people read the Australian Cattle Dog article every day. That is 322,000 readers since FA. These readers have raised questions about the choice of images, the use of nicknames and acronyms, and the current status of herding. Not one has suggested that aggression should be emphasised.
• There have been around 200 ratings of the article at any time since this system began and only in the last month have ratings for Objective, Complete and Well-written fallen below 4.9.
• I ask what percentage of all editors, reviewers and raters are now insisting that not only should additional information on aggression be added, but that the information should come not from authoritative, previously vetted sources, but from sensationalised media accounts. Canis5855 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You bring up some good questions here, although your last point grossly distorts the current situation. I am interested to see if Jim and Casliber have opinions on these issues that they would like to share.

I also note that, for someone with a total of 42 edits to Wikipedia, you seem to have a rather extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policies and data-mining techniques. May I ask if you have edited under one or more different usernames in the past? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the only username I have edited under. I'm not really interested in editing - too many other things to do. I am a researcher studying the knowledge economy. Canis5855 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The last thing I intend to do is to take sides in this. I made it clear at the outset that my only concern is to maintain the integrity of the FA. Burke's Backyard is not a reliable source by FA standards. It would get by if it was straightforward "dogs have four legs" stuff , but it's being used here to support a contentious viewpoint. If it can't be replaced by a proper source, it needs to go. Having made some progress on cleaning up this article, it would be best if the regular editors could see a consensual way forward on this. If not, I'll do what I said at the outset, and remove any text that doesn't have an RS source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, reading Talk:Australian_Cattle_Dog#Bite_Statistics_and_Breed_Labelling makes me increasingly uneasy about the Burke reference. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

BB has been used variously in the article. Currently its being used as a primary source "for avoiding the breed." But as a secondary source (which is not quite what the current structure of the article uses it) as in this article, BB reports its findings by:

• the NSW state governement: "the NSW state government supports 'Burke's Backyard's' stand on dangerous dogs. The government has now released a policy aimed at protecting people from dangerous dogs." and "The NSW government's research also found certain breeds of dogs are more likely to bite people than others. These breeds are Australian Cattle Dog, German Shepherd, Bull Terrier types and Rottweiler. These results support the 'Burke's Backyard' story earlier this year where the five breeds of dogs it was recommended to avoid were: Australian Cattle Dog; Bull Terrier; Doberman; German Shepherd; and Rottweiler. Our statistics showed that these breeds were responsible for 75% of dog bites in Australia. Despite these figures it is important to note that even so-called aggressive breeds can make great pets provided they have the right training and temperament."
• the RSPCS: "Statements from the RSPCA also agree with 'Burke's Backyard's' stand on the issue of dangerous dogs." and this "The RSPCA believes dog breeders should be informing potential owners of the temperament and genetic makeup of the breed to make sure that the dogs will be happier and the owners will be happier and there will be less incidents of dog bites in Australia."

So are we suggesting BB isn't a reliable primary source and isn't a reliable secondary source for the NSW state governement and RSPCA? I'd have a hard time with the latter — but want to hear the discussion and will respect the consensus. Thanks. 842U (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Do the sheets ascribed to Don Burke have an author? It is highly unlikely that Don Burke wrote them himself and they are attributed only to CTC Productions. A gardening/lifestyle television program is not a reliable interpreter of a government report. Canis5855 (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Good, The Bad and the Furry

The 2005 book The Good, The Bad and the Furry, by Sam Stall and Edwin Sayres, President of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said the Australian Cattle Dog, because of "its powerful jaws make it a very dangerous opponent, it should always be leashed in public.”

The reference mis-represents the source, by implying that Ed Sayers, President of the ASPCA made a statement about the Australian Cattle Dog. The book was authored by Sam Stall. Ed Sayers contributed a preface after the fact, talking about responsible pet ownership. Ed Sayers made no comment on dog breeds, canine temperaments, or the Australian Cattle Dog.Canis5855 (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The book is not a reliable source of information on a contested subject. Sam Stall was a journalist at the Indianapolis Monthly. His forte is compiling books on popular subjects from out-of-copyright sources. He has no expertise in dog breeds. The ACD chapter of this book contains a number of easily identifiable errors casting doubt on the accuracy of all the information.Canis5855 (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The quoted material adds nothing to the article. Under worldwide leash laws all dogs “should always be leashed in public”. BTW recently the city council in Elephant Butte, New Mexico passed an exemption to the local leash laws to allow an Australian Cattle Dog to continue to live ‘homeless’ as it has done for the last ten years.Canis5855 (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the statement crediting Sayers with authorship. However, as Sayers did write the foreward, we can assume that this expert is confirming the obvious fact that this is a generally well-researched, accurate book on the subject matter. The breed-specific recommendation about leasing in public does not have anything to do with leash laws. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no support for that assumption. The foreword is a marketing tool and the standard practice is for the writer to comment on the expertise of the author and the quality of the book. Sayers did not say that it was a "generally well-researched, accurate book" or give it any other accolades, though it would have been standard practice to offer such praise. Canis5855 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The ACD does not have 'powerful jaws' when compared to other dog breeds. It was bred to nip and get out of the way, which does not require jaw strength. Jennifer Ellis' article in the Journal of Anatomy demonstrates that the size of the dog and the width of its jaw predicts bite strength. The wider the jaw, the higher the bite force - the ACD is a medium sized dog with a narrow jaw. If this disputed fact can be supported by another reference it can be returned to the article, but for the moment I have removed it. Canis5855 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on People

Data accumulated in New South Wales from 2004-2005 showed that, as a breed, registered Australian Cattle Dogs were involved in more more attacks on people than any other breed save the German Shepherd on an overall basis.

The cited source says that "Under the Companion Animals Act 1998 a dog attack can include any incident where a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal." It is a serious mis-representation of the source to report the stats as "attacks on people" Canis5855 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is also badly written "save the German Shepherd"? "on an overall basis"? What does this mean? Canis5855 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please attempt to limit your insults. What is unclear about "save the German Shepherd?" That is standard English grammar which means "except" the German Shephard. "On an overall basis" is to distinguish the total attacks from the per-capita attacks, which I discuss in the next sentence. You are the only person so far to report difficulty understanding it. Note that my language was reviewed by two highly-experienced FA reviewers without issue. Perhaps it is not bad writing, but bad comprehension skills that are the problem. I have corrected the language regarding the nature of attacks. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It was not an insult. It was a stament of opinion on the prose. "Save" is archaic, now used only poetically. If "except the German Shepherd" is meant then "except the German Shepherd" should be what is said. If "in total" is meant then it should say "in total" not "on an overall basis" which is meaningless Canis5855 (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your linguistic analysis. "Save" is still commonly used and understood, and "an overall basis" was completely clear in context. I believe that, in general, sentences I had written were more clearly worded than the language with which you have replaced them. However, in the interest of moving forward, I shall let your edits stand. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of 'save' here might be construed as poetic... but what I find poetic is the grammatical zeal of an editor perfectly inexperienced and unschooled in the ways of Wikipedia, save for having edited four articles — low and behold, all on dogs — who then jumps with laser focus into the very embattled section of the article that has so occupied for months the focus of numerous experienced editors... several of whom have quit editing the article, threatened to quit or even... retired. Ostensibly.842U (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I’m not going to discuss editors, including myself, but I’d point out to those that don’t know it that Wikipedia is not the only Wiki in existence. There are hundreds of thousands of them, edited by people from third graders up. Many wikis use MediaWiki exactle the same software as Wikipedia, including one my institution uses like this research wiki. Canis5855 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of save is neither poetic nor archaic; it is a common idiom and can be seen in many articles in Wikipedia. However the use of the phrase on an overall basis is a little vague and might confuse some readers. Total might be better, or the phrase raw total (assuming we are talking about raw numbers). I agree though that these edits come at a bad time. In future I wish people would discuss here (as we have been doing) rather than just making edits. Of course it is possible that these edits occurred in complete ignorance of the discussions on the back page. Maybe some html comments above the controversial sections are in order? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind the word "save" at all...but I am somewhat concerned about the NSW government's definition of "attack" which strikes me as broader than common understanding, but it is our job to reflect sources. Is this a common definition of "attack"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading the report more closely last night, I see that it digs down and separates out attacks on people, attacks on dogs, attacks on other animals, etc. for the whole dog population, but doesn't break it down species by species. However, since "Temperament" is not limited to the ways dogs interact with humans, I think this information is appropriate for this section, especially since the meaning of "attack" in the study has been so clearly defined. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Tacked on sentences

It will bite if treated harshly.

This is a very short sentence and seems disconnected from the paragraph which focuses on the dangers of instinctive herding and protecting behaviours if they are not trained out at an early age. I have restored the previous beginning of the sentence which connects the sentence to the paragraph. Canis5855 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Australian Cattle Dog's protective nature and tendency to nip at heels can be dangerous as the dog grows into an adult if unwanted behaviors are left unchecked.

This sentence doesn’t belong in a paragraph on breed bite statistics. In addition it repeats information contained in an earlier paragraph, and the referencing is inconsistent with the rest of the article. I’ve deleted the sentence and expanded the information in the earlier paragraph from the existing reference, to maintain the same level of emphasis. Canis5855 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is on temperament, not specifically on breed bite statistics. I have restored it. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The section is on temperament. The last paragraph is on breed bite statistics. The information on the ACD being protective and having a tendency to nip heels is already in an earlier paragraph. Please don't revert my edit until others have a chance to comment. Canis5855 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As we're required to exercise good faith here, and while it stretches credulity that an editor could arrive in this discussion precisely as others depart, and could out of thin air be so completely invested in a contentious discussion that largely predates their demonstrated interest in the subject and which has been so highly contentious as to send at least two editors scurrying from the article -- I'll suspend my disbelief enough to suggest that ebikeguy's take on the matter reflects a longstanding commitment to the article's neutrality.842U (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Canis, In response to your input, I have moved the sentence about nipping heals, as well as another sentence on biting behavior into a new paragraph, leaving the paragraph on bite statistics totally devoted to this subject. In the future, if you have a problem with the writing style, I urge you to discuss solutions that will preserve valid, well-cited language, rather than deleting the content for stylistic reasons. Failure to do so will reinforce the suspicions that you are simply looking for reasons to remove material that are in conflict with your POV. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 deals with the problematic instincts to herd and protect, a new tiny paragraph is not required. It is still repetitive but at least it is repeated within the one paragraph. As I was involved in the FA for this article I have a fairly good understanding of the stylistic requirements including the need for not just 'correct' referencing, but consistent referencing. I believe this involvement pre-dates any interest in the article from some current editors. Canis5855 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have any understanding of the stylistic requirements of a Wikipedia Featured Article if you yourself had only made eleven edits before you participated in the FA process? That's not really possible. Counseling on a Featured Article requires in depth experience. I'm getting a 'non-analytical positive' here. 842U (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attack

One can learn from experience, but also by reading the instructions. Luckily for me I can read. As I explained above I use MediaWiki daily. 842U, interesting to note that your aversion to personal attacks doesn't stop you making them. Canis5855 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My comment was made under this heading. Your removal of the heading is an attempt to refactor my comment. Please do not repeat such behaviour. Thank you very much. Canis5855 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You placed the new heading title above 842U's previous comment. See the diff here. In doing so, you were refactoring 842U's comment. Your accusation that I have done anything wrong in removing that heading title is both ludicrous and disturbing. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ludicrous and disturbing, yes, but not unfamiliar.842U (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks in 842U's comments. He/she was simply expressing a reasonable suspicion that you might be a sockpuppet, based on your editing behavior. Other reasonable editors, including me, will be able to see the reasoning behind such a suspicion. 842U made no comments about your personally. I have undone your attempt to refactor 842U's comments. Please do not repeat such behavior. Thank you very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Referencing inconsistencies

References 14 and 15 are cited using the cite web template which is for web sites, not for news articles, reports, and papers that have been published online. 14 should use cite news and 15 cite conference to be consistent with the other fifty-four references. Canis5855 (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you see inconsistencies in the reference styles, please fix them. This is what an editor who was interested in improving the article would do. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an editor interested in improving an FA would ensure the referencing was consistent. Canis5855 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of Sydney Morning Herald article.

The newspaper article says that the Dog Attack Register shows that 666 attacks on people occurred between January and March 2010, and that the Australian cattle dog was responsible for 93 of these incidents. However as Ebikeguy notes above only the overall statistics are broken down by breed, not the attacks on people. There were 1122 dog attacks between January and March, and these were 'attacks' defined as any incident where a dog rushes at, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal. The Australian Cattle dog was responsible for 93 of 1122 incidents - where these included chasing a neighbours cow. Not 93 of 666 attacks on people. Canis5855 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A less sensationalised report of the same Register statistics. Canis5855 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment Regarding Aggression Subsection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to not split the temperament section. Regards, — Moe ε 23:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Should this article contain a separate subsection entitled "Aggression" within the "Temperament" section? Ebikeguy (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• No, as the current section size doesn't mandate subsectioning. Furthermore, there is nothing so special in dogs' aggression that would make this particular trait deserve some kind of special treatment. Effectively I would recommend to condense the "aggression" part of section instead, moving the stats to the notes. After reading talk page discussion I would note that I don't own Australian Cattle Dog, don't recall ever seeing it, never heard of this name before reading this article, never owned any other dog and have no other sorts of affiliation with the topic that I could think of. updated — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes Because of five points, taken together:
• 1. Subsection because numerous reliable sources single out the issue: There are numerous notable sources -- debatable as the subject is, and despite a concerted effort to debate them out of the article -- that outline the aggressive characteristics of this breed specifically, often dealing only with that aspect of its temperament and always distinguishing that aspect of its temperatment:

• ACD: should always be leashed in public
• ACD: cute as puppies, dangerous as adults, if unchecked
• ACD: Burke's Backyard says avoid the breed
• ACD: NSW government says its 1 of 5 Breeds to Avoid
• ACD: 7% of dog bites, where breed identified
• ACD: Burke's Backyard advisory, only where breeder's are selectively breeding out aggression.
• ACD: 2nd Gold Coast City attack list
• ACD: Victorian BAW 2nd most predominant of breeds involved in dog bites;
• ACD: Sydney Morning Herald reports NSW ranking as 2nd most likely breed to attack
• ACD: Station 2UE reports as Sydney's 2nd most dangerous breed
• ACD: Daily Beast reported as 10th, World's Most Dangerous Dogs
• ACD: Daily Telegraph reports as 5th most aggressive breed

• 2. Subsection because its a Life Safety Issue: canine aggression and breed-related canine aggression are life safety issues — i.e., a priority. It is incorrect to subjugate the life-safety aspects of the ACD's temperament to its more agreeable aspects, its eagerness, intelligence etc., which inherently don't have life safety implications. The life safety aspect of the topic would show up in the contents box of the article and would serve the reader. It's hard to image a Featured Article that soft-peddles an important issue to the point where life safety aspects of a breed aren't a priority -- debatable as the issue is.

• 4.5 million in U.S. bitten by dogs annually, 1 in five or 885,000 seek medical attention (CDC, Sacks, 2008)
• 334,000 people visit emergency rooms annually for dog bites (Bradley, 2006)
• 2% of those seeking emergency room treatment for dog bites each year are actually hospitalized (CDC WISQARS)

• 3. Sub-sections are common on WP with other similar breeds: it is common for WP dog breed articles to distinguish subsections relating to that specific breed's aggression, especially where that quality is a salient aspect of its temperament. Of the five breeds singled out by the New South Wales government, for example, as being "more likely to bite people than others," three of the four (not counting the ACD) have subsections on aggression: American Staffordshire Terrier has a subsection on Breed specific legislation; German Shepherd has a section on Aggression and biting; Doberman has a subsection on 'Aggression.' Another article, Pit bull, which covers numerous breed which have also received coverage for a salient aspect of their temperament, has a section (not subsection), on Attacks on humans.
• 4: Sub-section because this article gives precedent: While Wikipedia is mute on giving advice on when to subsection, this (featured) article sets a loud precedent: it distinguishes with sub-sections attributes of the ACD tail, grooming and activities. The information pertaining to the breed's appearance could easily be more succinct, but instead the article indulges all aspects of the dog's tail, going so far as to compare and contrast the naturalness, brush and fullness between the ACD's tail and other breeds.
• 5. Sub-section to give neutrality: We are not here discussing the temperament of the ACD. We are discussing the aggression of the ACD. It is it's own unit of thought. It deserves a structural demarcation from the temperment, it deserves to have the reader process the information differently precisely because the issue of encompasses points and counter points, different types of aggression, different recommendations specifically about the ACD. If the article were only for aficionados, or written only by people who love the breed or for people who have an ACD and want to promote the breed, a single temperament section might suffice. If this article were only for people who oppose the concept of breed-related aggression, a single temperament section might suffice. But the article isn't for special interest groups, and as such requires sub-sectioning balance, and not a type of balance that highlights the breed's tail while subjugating a salient and singular aspect of its temperament that comes with life safety ramifications and that has by itself received notable coverage.842U (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, Aggression in the Australian Cattle Dog is not significantly different from aggression in any working breed, and recent research shows that in incidents of aggression the breed of the dog is less significant than other factors. The arguments above are spurious - the references for the most part are newspaper and tv use of the same press release from a decade ago. Marj (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• This Rfc is supposed to be about whether to include a header. I don't know why we are talking about content issues. Information on aggression fits naturally in the Temperament section. No one looking for that information will have difficulty finding it. --Dodo bird (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Against This is an FA article, and it isn't good practice to have sections with just one sub-section (this is just in regards to the partitioning of the material, not the material itself). Betty Logan (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Against The information should be added from reliable sources, and then (and only if) there is sufficient information to warrant a subsection then it can be split off. But it shouldn't be gone into expecting there to automatically be a subsection. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The references used in supporting the related information are clearly reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definitions. Other reliable source might be out there to offer a counterpoint. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not clearly reliable. Why have ten year old statistics been used rather than this years', which give a very different picture? Marj (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I've included counterpoints with references in the subsection, and because Wikipedia gives no rules on the subjection of when to section or subsection, I opened a discussion at the MoS a few days ago and have invited the only contributing editor, Wavelength, there to participate here. 842U (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not sure that my input here can facilitate a consensus. In the current version of the article "Australian Cattle Dog", the sub-subsection "Aggression" is a sub-subsection of the subsection "Temperament".

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#When to subsection (version of 15:40, 4 August 2012), I posted the following comments.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Body sections (version of 11:10, 1 August 2012) says: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." In my experience, some sections titled "History" are probably the longest that I have seen, and some of them have more than 20 paragraphs. The editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject History can decide how best to divide them into subsections.

Wikipedia:Splitting#When to split (version of 10:33, 28 July 2012) says: "The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article, are size and content relevance." [sic] Instead of copying more than that from that guide for splitting articles, I simply refer to the linked page section for more details. I propose that similar guidance for article sections be included somewhere on Wikipedia, if it is not included already.

The article in its present version appears to me to be satisfactory in respect to size and content relevance of sections and subsections and sub-subsections. Also, the five points presented by 842U appear to support the decision to have a separate sub-subsection "Aggression".

If any editors believe that the article gives too much weight or prominence to aggression, then I propose that they search for information about positive qualities of temperament, and then that information can be presented in another sub-subsection of the subsection "Temperament".

—Wavelength (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that simple. "Good points" and "bad points" are the same characteristic in different contexts. A cattle dog effectively herds cattle by nipping at their heels: a cattle dog may herd running children by nipping at their heels. A cattle dog is devoted to its owner and protective of them and their possessions: a cattle dog may aggressively defend their owner if it perceives a threat. A cattle dog will stand up to a wild bull: a cattle dog may want to show the dogs at the park that it is boss. Marj (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the subsection "Temperament", after describing temperament in neutral terms and mentioning whether the dogs can be trained to distinguish between different contexts and to behave accordingly, can have a sub-subsection "Advantages" and a sub-subsection "Disadvantages" for different contexts.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a separate subsection is fine but I am ok with a single Temperament section that treats all aspects of temperament with NPOV. I do still prefer a separate subsection; the suggestion of "Advantages/Disadvages" is a good one, perhaps with these two subsections following a brief introduction with purely objective statements regarding temperament. If we decide to go with the "Aggression" subsection, which I am weakly in favor of, then we need to rewrite the rest of the Temperament section to omit references to aggression. So in temperament we can refer to herding instincts but leave comments about increased tendencies to nip in the aggression section (but leaving the concepts clearly linked). I also believe, for the sake of NPOV, that any section on aggression should devote some text to explaining that breed is not a reliable predictor of aggression with pointers to the relevant pages. Peace, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether a particular breed characteristic is an "advantage" or a "disadvantage" depends on the owner and what they are looking for in a dog. 'High energy levels' for example is a disadvantage if you're a couch potato, but an advantage if you're looking for a running companion. Is "protective" good or bad? Depends on the situation, entirely. As for "purely objective statements" regarding temperament, I'm not sure what they might be - unless you mean only having the temperament description from the breed standard. Marj (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the references divide temperament into advantages and disadvantages, so would an editor doing so constitute Original Research? Marj (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Move To Close - Consensus (or at least a substantial majority of votes cast) seems to indicate that the article should NOT contain a separate subsection on aggression. However, the RfC also seems to indicate that the Temperament should devote substantial, clear language toward the ACD's documented aggressiveness. Since we now have two expert FA reviewers monitoring this article, I am confident that any questions regarding the reliability of references on the ACD's temperament will be thoroughly screened and rejected if they are not found to be reliable. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one responded directly to my move to close, I have assumed that closing would be okay. To that end, I have restored the language in the Temperament section as discussed below. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I know I can live with that. I understand the idea now is to tweak minor aspects of formatting that may be incongruent with FA formatting. Great.842U (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research

"Australian Cattle Dogs are commonly involved in dog attacks in areas where the breed is well-established."

• Is there a reference for this statement, or is this a piece of original research on the part of the editor? Canis5855 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

All the references in the associated paragraph support that statement. Your persistent attempts to remove such wording strongly suggests your are pushing your own point of view. I urge you to stop. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made no attempt at all to remove the statement, I have simply asked for a reference. If any of the references actually say that "Cattle Dogs are commonly involved in dog attacks in areas where the breed is well-established" then it should be no problem to add the specific reference at the end of this sentence. The statement is certainly not made in the next reference given and the absence of any other citation implies that the newspaper article is the source. Canis5855 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not been able to locate any report on the level to which the breed is established in different areas. None of the published reports on attacks in Aus or elsewhere link attacks to population levels in different areas. Many of them do comment on the fact that it is impossible to know what the dog population is in an area, given problems with identification and the low rate of registrations. Canis5855 (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The American Temperament Test Society Refs

Nice work, Canis. Thank you. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Victorian Stats

Data from six municipalities in Victoria showed them responsible for 90 of 700 attacks (13%) from 1997 to 1999.

• This sentence is taken from a conference paper that is not on Australian Cattle Dogs, or on breed temperaments but on the effectiveness of breed specific legislation. The paper makes statements such as “breed specific bite statistics are flawed”, “behavioural differences have more to do with training than the breed”, and “genetic research has concluded that there are no inherent differences in types of dogs when it comes to aggression”. In making the point that bite statistics do not support breed specific legislation, Watson cites statistics from a number of sources. To take one of these sets of figures and give Watson's name as the source attributes to Watson information that 1) did not come from her and 2) is contrary to the opinion she expresses in the paper. This is unethical.Canis5855 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• The original source of the data quoted here is no longer available. The Accident Research Centre at Monash University no longer collects the apparent breed involved in dog attacks, and no longer makes available previous reports that included breed statistics, saying that breed has been found to not be a risk factor in dog aggression.Canis5855 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• One of the other sources cited by Watson is available, and should be used as an ethical alternative. I suggest replacing the above sentence with: “A review of incidents in Melbourne where a dog bit, rushed at or chased a person or animal in a public space, found that there were sixty breeds involved and the Australian Cattle Dog and Cattle Dog crosses accounted for 9% of incidents.” – Van der Kuyt, UAM 2001. Canis5855 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for using particular statistics.

They can chue on eneytheing --67.164.149.247 (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC) The article includes three sets of statistics from the Department of Local Government, New South Wales:

July 2004 - June 2005

January 2010 - March 2010

July 2010 - June 2011

They are included in the article as unconnected information, they are even separated by Victorian statistics to give the impression that they are unrelated. Why are three sets of figures required, and why these three specific sets? The most recent set is relevant and informative, but why an interim 3 month report and not the 2009/10 report. And why is 2004/05 included? What makes this year more relevant than any other year? Canis5855 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

Since I seem to have become the default arbiter on this article, I'm going to make some suggestions to consider while I'm away at the weekend. It's clear that the Temperament section is contentious, but I have no axe to grind on this topic, and I'm going to make some suggestions. I'm not inviting a rehash of past arguments, and my sole aim is that what is being claimed can be referenced to strong sources, and that the overall impression of the final paragraph is defensible, given that real consensus seems unlikely. The easy bit, the vague allegations, has already gone. There are a couple of sourcing issues which I can't fix. When these are dealt with, I'll make the changes, subject to any genuinely helpful comments.

I hope this will end the edit warring, but if not, I'll revert to my edit and fully protect the page. Any concerns about such action, should it be necessary, should be reported to another uninvolved admin for a second opinion, or to WP:ANI.

• Canis has argued that all the NSW data should be together. I tend to agree that geographical grouping of data is appropriate, then chronological within that context.
• In New South Wales (NSW), the ACD made up 93 of 666 attacks (14%) in a three-month period. — add in 2010. Although sourced, the newspaper article is highly emotive, and unhelpful in this difficult section. Can it be referenced to the original data, which is better practice anyway?
• Data accumulated from Council reports in New South Wales from 2004-2005 showed that dogs identified as Australian Cattle Dogs were involved in more attacks than any other breed except the German Shepherd, where an attack is defined as any incident where a dog rushes at, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal. Expressed as a percentage of registered dogs, 0.1% of Australian Cattle Dogs were involved in attacks. Fourteen other breeds had an equal or greater rate of involvement. — sourcing is OK, seems an accurate reflection of source. The last sentence should say "total number of incidents", it's not the rate, which has already been given. I don't accept that counting to 14th in a list amounts to OR.
• Council reports of dog attacks in NSW in 2011-2012 identified the Australian Cattle dog as the twenty-seventh most likely breed to be involved in incidents when ranked as a percentage of dogs registered. — suggest as the twenty-seventh in a list of involvement in incidents ranked by percentage of dogs registered. — This avoids the suggestion of predictive value
• Data from six municipalities in Victoria showed them responsible for 90 of 700 attacks (13%) from 1997 to 1999 — source OK, old data better than none
• Surveys of U.S. breed club members showed that both dog-directed aggression and stranger-directed aggression were higher in the ACD than the average of breeds studied, with dog-directed aggression being the more prevalent of the two aggression types. — I can only access the abstract, which doesn't mention the dog-dog aggression, but I don't see that anyone is arguing that this sentence misrepresents the source
• The American Temperament Test Society reports a test pass rate of 79.3% for Australian Cattle Dogs. — I get "Access forbidden",
• The average pass rate for all breeds combined is 80.4%. — If you are using this study, I think it's fair to mention the findings too There is no evidence in the literature to support the notion that restricting particular breeds helps reduce dog attacks...
• There are obvious problems with trying to quantify aggression. Overall, I think it's appropriate to give statistical data, and then balance that with qualifications like Note 1, and Watson's overall findings

This will probably upset everyone, but there you are. See you on Monday Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one am not upset:

• I will collect the NSW data in chronological order.
• Original data not available.
• I revised this to remove the original research which interpreted the stats. Counting to 14 is not interpretation and OK by me.
• Newer data is available. Will replace.
• Now that this says 'US breed club members" not "Dog owners" I happy with this sentence.
• No breed specific legislation includes the ACD.
• Agreed. Canis5855 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Referencing is now consistent, and Aus spelling used throughout, and all those other tiny things like no double spaces. Canis5855 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"It is not a breed that lives in a pack with other dogs."

That sentence doesn't make any sense. We can't see the source so maybe it is taken out of context? I can't think of any reason that all dogs couldn't live in a pack, and I definitely don't think it makes sense to apply a statement like that to an entire breed. Beach drifter (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There are breeds that have been developed to live in close packs - Beagles for example, which is why they are the breed often used for laboratory tests. Some breeds are naturally more social than others which are more independent. Breed clubs have play days where the dogs play freely - but you won't see Kelly Blue Terrier, Giant Schnauzer, Akita, or Australian Cattle Dog breed clubs organising play days as these breeds generally don't like close associations with other dogs. Of course an individual dog doesn't always conform to the overall breed characteristics, and the situation in which it is raised can outweigh hereditary patterns. Canis5855 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2013

The following is not an edit as such but rather information that should be used to edit the existing information. I am happy to rewrite this as a text edit if you wish. I have both medallions and the cup and could supply photos if requested. Please let me know if you want photos of the items mentioned. Little Logic's owner, Arch Bevis was my grandfather

This article refers to Little Logic.

Little Logic was bred, owned and exhibited by Arch Bevis who lived in Ashgrove, Brisbane. The article also says Royal shows were abandoned during WW11. I have the 1941 medallion for the winner of the dog of show - who I believe was Little Logic. . The medallion is marked " Royal Empire Show 7th-15th April, 1941 Sydney and inscribed Cattle Dog - Dog A. Bevis. In 1941 A Bevis was also awarded the medallion engraved " R.E. Show, 1941, Court Rice Medal, Cattle D. or B., A. Bevis"

The reference to no shows during WW11 should be altered. However I do not have further details on which years they were held.

In recognition of his outstanding success as a breeder, in 1947 he received a trophy cup, engraved "RAS of NSW, Royal Easter Show 1947, Most Successful Exhibitor Cattle Dogs & Kelpies, Awarded, A.Bevis"

Rhei55 (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also please provide reliable, independent sources to corroborate your claims. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rhei55 - This is one of the frustrating things about Wikipedia's verification policy. Where something in print is obviously an error, contradicted by experiences or even historical artifacts, Wikipedia still has to use the information in the referencable sources. I'll do some more research to see if I can find something else in print. If you can upload a photo to Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page it may be able to be added to the article. Your grandfather played a very important role in Australian History. Canis5855 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dog Weight

The listed weights for this breed are wrong. 42-60 lbs? At a breed standard max height of 20 inches a 60 lb dog would be the fattest laziest ACD ever.

There is no weight standard from AKC, but the Canadian Kennel Club has a desirable weight of 33-50 lbs in their standard. http://www.ckc.ca/en/Default.aspx?tabid=99&BreedCode=ACD

Some other sources: http://animal.discovery.com/breed-selector/dog-breeds/herding/australian-cattle-dog.html http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/australian-cattle-dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.255.56.205 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I was just about to post the same basic comment. I have changed this page to reflect the UKC and CKC standards since they are the only one's I found to specify weight.

http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/HerdingDog/AustralianCattleDog10012013 Weight from 33 to 50 pounds.Mantion (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ATTS

ATTS is a organization who tests dogs to deem them safe. their websites clearly states their information is in no way conclusive or scientific. Not every website should be treated as valid. Please remove all reference to this website from all wiki pages including this oneMantion (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"The American Temperament Test Society reports a test pass rate of 79.3% for Australian Cattle Dogs." This statement is is verifiable.

The information from the ATT is as valid as that from the NSW Local Councils. Your personal opinion of the organisation needs to be supported here on the talk page before you remove the information. The ATT is used as a reference in articles in peer reviewed journals including The Journal of Popular Culture, Sports Law Journal, Urban Animal Management, and Biobehavioral Health (search Google Scholar). It has been approved by a number of editors and reviewers as an appropriate reference here. Canis5855 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Canis5855. Sigh. Anyone can make a website or a company. Just because some company says something doesn't make it true and doesn't make it relevant. ATTS information is not true (verified) nor is it relevant.

For example if you sold coffee and put on your website that it is the "best coffee in the world" someone CAN NOT go to the coffee wiki page and put "Canis5855 sells the best coffee in the world". If how ever a newspaper or restaurant guide did a survey and reported yours was the best coffee in town, then someone could put on a wiki page that your coffee was the best in town based on the survey. That said, the information would still not be relevant on the wiki page about coffee.

The ATTS is a bogus company that "test" dogs according to its own standards. It admits that it is non-scientific, and that no breed or even 2 dogs are judged to the same criteria... But that doesn't matter. The key here is no organization has verified nor could they verify the information that this company puts on their website. To that end nothing on an ATTS website can be included in any article on wikipedia until that information is verified. SO unless you know of an organization that has witnessed and vetted the information collected over the last 30 years, you can't post it on wikipedia. You are more then welcome post ATTS statements on a forum, or make a blog, or record a vlog, or make your own website about the ATTS. Heck you can even email your friends and post flyers about the ATTS.

I really do not have time to find a moderator that wants to explain it any better. So please just remove what you just added so we can both move on with out lives. Trust me the topic of the ATTS has been discussed, debated and the conclusion is nothing on the website is of value to wikipedia because it is just some organization putting up its own information.Mantion (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I see from your talk page that you like starting arguments, but all you have given here is your personal opinion. Do you have a single authoritative source of criticism of ATTS?

Bernard Rollin uses ATTS as a reference on dog temperament in his article on Animal Ethics in the Animal Law Journal, as well as the examples given above of authors in peer reviewed journals who use ATTS statistics. Canis5855 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I like improving articles, Sounds more like you want an argument. Sorry but what is my personal opinion? This has been discussed, debated and moderated. Just because Joe's coffee shops says they have the best coffee doesn't make it wikipedia worthy.

Yes I have personally spoken and shared emails with the founder of the ATTS, Yes he did say that dogs are NOT tested to the same standard, they are judged based on the type of dog and the level of training. He openly admits on his website that it is non-scientific, that pass/failure rates between any 2 type of dog is not relevant. He also said that more than half of the dogs fail because of "fear" in that they did not want to engage the stimuli. He also said that a pitbull being bred to bite and fight should naturally try to attack. He said a number of pit owners have been bitten and the pits still passed. He also said many dogs show no aggression and are friendly but pull away and can't be "calmed" in the area of the stimuli. He said he "saved many dangerous dogs from being put down". Lastly he admits he is running a business and the stats are often quoted on pages and it brings a lot of traffic to his site, he doesn't even update them often and when he does he just guesses at the numbers as dogs are tested all over by many different instructors, most of whom do not report the information properly. But honestly nothing I know about the company matters. Just read the companies website.

"The pass-fail rate is not a measure of a breed’s aggression, but rather of each dog’s ability to interact with humans, human situations, and the environment."...

Reasons for failure "Unprovoked aggression, Panic without recovery, Strong avoidance"...

Aggression test "evaluate the dog’s protective instincts."..."Aggression here is checked against the breed standard and the dog’s training. A schutzhund trained dog lunging at the stranger is allowed, but if an untrained Siberian husky does the same, it may fail."

"Remember the score is dependent on the conditions at the time of the test (weather, dog’s health and nervousness, human’s health and nervousness, etc.). Comparing scores with other dogs is not a good idea. Also the total score has no meaning. "

"Subtest 4: Gunshots

The handler stops at a designated marker with his/her back towards a well hidden assistant. The assistant fires three shots using a .22 caliber starter pistol (SHOT-PAUSE-SHOT-SHOT). The purpose of this subtest is to measure the dog’s recovery response to a sudden noise."...

Yes a dog that pulls away from the gunshots and does not "recover" is failed. Failure in just one subset means complete failure "a dog may pass with a score of 10, or fail with a score of 90. Each subtest stands on its own merits."

What does matter is the company admits its statistics have no value, none of the results are verified or scientific. As such they are just one companies opinion not useful information. Mantion (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the company admitted something to you, and neither you nor I, nor any other editor here qualify as a notable source. You are relating a conversation, whereas Wikipedia requires vetted sources. Your experience, and I don't doubt it, qualifies as original research. The editors on other side of the discussion from you aren't about to let this slide. On the other hand, if you do find a bona fide source to back up your claim, it can more easily find a place in the article. 842U (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about original research? this is the talk page, this isn't the article. This article is about a dog, not the atts, Why would I need to find a source? I pointed out at great length that people should not include ATTS information on wiki pages which no one disputes. Stop making this about me, or even the ATTS, this article is about Australian cattle dogs. Only properly vetted information should be included. What the "company" or "founder" or other employees told and wrote me certainly does NOT matter. Additionally information on their website does NOT matter. I hope we can all agree with that.Mantion (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the ATTS opinion from this page and do not restore it until such information is deemed vetted. It is original research, it is not scientific, it is being misrepresented and has no relevance to the dog the article is about. This topic has been discussed on many pages. In totality everyone has concluded that the opinions of the ATTS are not worthy of wikipedia. I have tried to explain at length why the information is neither useful in life and valid here, but no one wishes to discuss this fact. Canis5855 added the information originally and continues to add it when removed. Of the last 100 edits, 38 were by Canis5855. If you wish you can review the talk page for the staffie, the ATTS has been debated there for a long time through many archives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAmerican_Staffordshire_Terrier#Can_we_just_delete_all_ATTS_post_at_will.3F It is plain to see the opinions of the ATTS have never been vetted and are original research, do we really need a moderator?Mantion (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientific research

None of the material on the cattle dog's 'aggression' is "scientific, reviewed or useful". The council reports quoted are the records of voluntary reports of incidents to local councils. There is no reporting requirement, and only NSW collects the reports. It stands to reason that people don't report their own dog , yet other studies of dog bite treatment at hospital emergency departments show that most attacks are by a dog owned by the friends or family of the person bitten. They also don't distinguish between chasing a cow, and biting a child - these are both 'incidents'. Melbourne (Victoria) no longer collect the dog's breed as part of an incident report as local government authorities state that the dog's breed is not a significant factor in dog attacks. The non-random survey of American breed club members is also questionable on many fronts. Canis5855 (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost nothing of ANY dog breed's temperament is "scientific," yet no one disputes the friendly temperament of most Labrador retrievers. However, anyone who has any experience with ACDs knows that socialization is important because these dogs are not afraid to use their mouths on strangers. 69.120.247.106 (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC) nomadofthehills

Agreed. Though the only dog I've ever been bitten by is a Golden Retriever called Tinkerbelle. All recent research shows that there is as much difference within a breed as between breeds, and that it is impossible to identify a uniform breed temperament. There are tendencies, such as biting heels to herd, or protectiveness. But training can overcome or enhance instincts. Canis5855 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Four pictures is NOT too much.

This is a quite good picture

This article is one of those articles where we have an issue with Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. One editor reverting others and not letting others edit the article. Four pictures is NOT too much, on the contrary this article doesn't have many images at all, there is place for one more. Actually several more, maybe a gallery. The dogs featchures are not very well represented, it lacks variety in images, coat colour, expression, both bodily and facial, showing the dog in action working, and so on. Wikipedia is not a book where the redaction say - three pictures by entry, please and no more. Wikipedia is a place were one can realy try to be better than a book.

More place, more possibilities. I think that you, the owner of the article should start considering it. Even if this is a good article it doesn't mean that it has to be the same stagnating article forever. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, or keeping an article in the same way forever, but moving on, and making good articles even better. Hafspajen (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Here we have some really fine pics
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

This article has been plagued by ownership issues for a long, long time. One editor left in a fit after mother-henning the article to within an inch of its life and illustrating the article heavily with photographs of her own dog. In the kind of coincidence that seems common in these sorts of Wikipedia matters, that editor was superseded in an instant by the sudden appearance (see Deus ex machina) of a new and astonishingly like-minded editor almost at the exact moment of the predecessor's exodus -- with nary a moment of the article left unguarded. Attempts to balance the article were exhausting and ultimately fruitless, leaving at least this editor to correlate the teeth-baring, nipping tenacity of these editors with the true nature of the Australian Cattle Dog -- which despite every effort to sanitize the article of the breed's darker characteristics, remains well-known for its aggressive and dangerous nature (at least outside the confines of this vigilantly protected bubble of an article). Ownership issues indeed. 842U (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of the number of images. It is a matter of balancing the images and the text and having images that illustrate points made in the text rather than simply decorate the article. Galleries are discouraged.Canis5855 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The image added was claimed to demonstrate a single mask. However the dog pictured did not have a mask, which is a spot covering the eye as the name suggests. There is already an image showing a half mask, nothing is gained by having two such images. Adding another image here puts Appearance images in the Temperament section. Canis5855 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)~

Editors who do not have experience with the featured article review process may wish to look at the extensive discussion on images and captions that took place as part of that process. Canis5855 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong, galleries are NOT discouraged, you are in error on that. Yes galleries have an encyclopedic value. It adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. The use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries. This part is from image use policy, about galleries. Hafspajen (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"May be appropriate in some articles if specific conditions are met" sounds like a discouraging of galleries to me. Canis5855 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So tell us all, what aspect of the Australian Cattle Dog "cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" and therefore requires a gallery. Canis5855 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Dingo ancestry?

Is there any DNA evidence or other solid evidence that dingoes were used in the creation of this breed? Monado (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Hall kept dingoes and was one of the earliest to record observations of dingoes in the wild and tamed. He saw them as key to developing a dog for the local conditions, and imported a breed to complement dingoes in his breeding program. So the Australian Cattle Dog started with dingoes. Researchers have difficulty determining the purity of contemporary dingoes using DNA, so I'm not sure it would produce "hard evidence" in the case of the cattle dog. You may be interested in Arnstein P, Cohen DH, Meyer KF (1964) Dingo blood improves famous cattle dog. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 145, 933-936. Canis5855 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To the point, the article should include solid sources for the information it suggests -- e.g., that the breed is related to the dingo.842U (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to see a new interest on your part in "solid" sources 842U, but I recognise this as another attempt to introduce contention where none exists. Have you ever come across a reference on the origin of the Australian Cattle Dog that does not give the dingo as one of the foundation breeds? If you believe this fact is disputed, then you produce even one reference to the point. Canis5855 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Supporting references:

• Arnstein, p933-936
• Beauchamp, p8
• Buetow, p17
• Clark, p5+
• Kaleski, p80
• Redhead, p9
• Robertson, p9
• Schwartz, p11

Canis5855 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Monado, "The molecular ecology of Australian wild dogs: hybridisation, gene flow and genetic structure at multiple geographic scales" Danielle Stephens (2011) is a recent study that looks at DNA identification of the dingo and cross bred wild dogs. It says that there is no record of dingo infusion in the Australian Kelpie despite their similarity in appearance, but that records of the genetic legacy of dingoes in the Australian Cattle Dog are reliable. She says that the difficulty in identifying pure dingoes for a genetic baseline, and the relatively low levels of difference between dogs and dingoes, and the established use of dingo genes in domestic breeds such as the Australian Cattle Dog present challenges in separating wild dogs from dingoes. Canis5855 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Unknown editor says "So a dingo is a solid, basic representation of this breed." No. Hall crossed his droving dogs with a dingo or dingoes in the late 1800s and the ACD was then developed through selective breeding. Breeders who re-introduced dingo blood such as McNiven were expelled from the Kennel Club and their dogs declared cross-breeds. The dingo and the Australian Cattle dog are very different canines. Canis5855 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Australian Cattle Dog. 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/20111002103453/http://www.ankc.org.au:80/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=132 to http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=132
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407102838/http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/information/NSW%20Report%20-%20Dog%20Attack%20Incidents%20-%204th%20quarter%20report%20-%202012-13.pdf to http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/information/NSW%20Report%20-%20Dog%20Attack%20Incidents%20-%204th%20quarter%20report%20-%202012-13.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531214822/http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Council%20Reports%20of%20Dog%20Attacks%20in%20NSW%202010-11.pdf to http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Council%20Reports%20of%20Dog%20Attacks%20in%20NSW%202010-11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130410105608/http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Prevention_of_dog_attacks_UAM01VandeKuyt_0.pdf to http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Prevention_of_dog_attacks_UAM01VandeKuyt_0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411020605/http://ccac.net.au/files/Does_breed_specific_leg_reduce_UAM03Watson.pdf to http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Does_breed_specific_leg_reduce_UAM03Watson.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522150948/http://conservationbiology.net:80/data/ccbpdfs/Wasser2008NatHist.pdf to http://conservationbiology.net/data/ccbpdfs/Wasser2008NatHist.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109025353/http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk:80/idid/how to http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk/idid/how
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815143450/http://www.animalresearchfoundation.com:80/texas_heeler.htm to http://www.animalresearchfoundation.com/texas_heeler.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002103453/http://www.ankc.org.au:80/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=132 to http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=132

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Cattle Dog. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=132
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://conservationbiology.net/data/ccbpdfs/Wasser2008NatHist.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk/idid/how
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animalresearchfoundation.com/texas_heeler.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002103453/http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=132 to http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=132

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Cattle Dog. 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/20141129025129/https://www.ckc.ca/en/Files/Forms/Shows-Trials/Breed-Standards/Group-7-Herding/ACD-Australian-Cattle-Dog to https://www.ckc.ca/en/Files/Forms/Shows-Trials/Breed-Standards/Group-7-Herding/ACD-Australian-Cattle-Dog

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Cattle Dog. 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/20150228052354/http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/HerdingDog/AustralianCattleDog to http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/HerdingDog/AustralianCattleDog

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

This line in the introduction paragraph of the wikipedia article on the Australian Cattle Dog states that Australian Cattle Dogs come in black or brown coat colors. "It has either brown or black hair distributed fairly evenly through a white coat, which gives the appearance of a "red" or "blue" dog." This isn't the case. Australian cattle dogs are mottled black or red dogs, not black or brown. In fact, the liver double recessive isn't present in this breed at all. I would like to edit that line to say the following: "It has either red or black hair distributed fairly evenly through a white coat, in the form of mottling, which can give the appearance of a "blue" dog on black coats." Talbit (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

cross breeds

could i please add my dogs breed (corgi-cattle dog.) to the cross breeds section? or is there some policy preventing that? Clone commando sev (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I love corgi-cattle mixes, so cute, but they are not a recognised breed in the way that the texas heeler is. --Canis5855 (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

oh ok. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

The Australian cattle dog was not developed in Australia as the breeds name might suggest. The breed was developed in the United States; the Australian cattle dog name referred to the imported cattle from Australia. Hence "Australian cattle" dog. 2600:1005:B1D4:38E4:52A1:CA95:3325:FA7C (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022

First paragraph, last sentence, reads "It has either brown or black hair ..." Delete brown. Insert red. In the genetics of canine coat colour this colour, in the ACD, is referred to as "tan" but common usage in the ACD world is "red". It is controlled by an allele of the Agouti gene series. Brown, in other breeds, is controlled by a gene in a different series and should not be confused with ACD re (or tan). See http://munster.sasktelwebsite.net/DogColor/dogcolorgenetics.html Nrc999 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thewsomeguy (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022 (2)

para 3: PLEASE CHANGE "In the 19th century, New South Wales cattle farmer Thomas Hall crossed the dogs used by drovers in his parents' home county, Northumberland, with dingoes he had tamed ... its development" TO "The first domestic dogs to arrive in Australia came with the First Fleet in 1788 and later convict fleets. A thriving stray dog population soon grew. Some of the strays, those with stock work potential, found home with the free settler, George Hall. Thomas Hall, a son of George, developed them into working dogs of excellence. Robert Kaleski, who wrote the first standard for the breed, called Hall's dogs Halls Heelers. The Halls Heelers were later developed into the two modern breeds, Australian Cattle Dog and Australian Stumpy tail Cattle Dog." Please cite Clark, Noreen R. (2022). A Dog for the Job. Calwell, ACT: Inspiring Publishers. ISBN 978-1-922792-64-8 ISBN 978-1-922792-43-3 Nrc999 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thewsomeguy (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Please delete: "In the 19th century ... its development". This should have been done when the correct version was added. There is no evidence of any kind that Thomas Hall crossed crossed the dogs used by drovers in his parents home county Northumberland etc. This is an invention promulgated in the 1990s and disputed (with substantiation) in my book "A Dog for the Job". Nrc999 (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Identification of breed in picture

Question concerning the first photograph in “History” section (captioned: An early Australian Cattle Dog, photographed in 1902). While recognizing that the breed has changed over the many years, it seems to me that this dog is maybe a “cattle dog” in vocation and not so much in breed. 1) while the dog pictured is a good looking dog one would hardly call it “robust” or “stout” as ACDs are known to be. 2) it’s rather narrow - breadth at the breast (dist. between front legs) and the hips (across rear legs) are narrow, not wide as in modern ACD. 3) correspondingly the feet, as placed on the ground, are close together not a wide stance. 4) eyes are close together vs wide-set. 5) coloring is predominately white with dark markings vs dark with lighter markings as with both blues and reds. 6) body markings are blotchy not uniform. 7) mask is not actually a facial marking but more a head marking. 8) Bentley Mark is non-existent. 9) with the curious activity (photographer) nearby the ears should be alert/perked, not relaxed/flopped.

While I wouldn’t complain if the picture and caption remained as-is, given the disparities I think verification of the facts in the caption is appropriate (is this known to be an early ACD or just a dog that worked cattle?). Cwoliver55 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)