Talk:Dingo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

apex predator in australia

is the crocodile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.119.113 (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't find the following vandalism in order to delete

some has written the following in the Problems in classifying the dingo section: "Dingo love to have sex because they r sex addicts. They have a penis twice the size of an elephants during mating season!"68.42.230.173 (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been already deleted [1]. --CiaPan (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

square-kilometres in diameter

??? (:-) -- so, which one is it? square or diameter; oh, BTW, I'll fix ortho kilometres (of course, in a moment) -- Wlod (talk), 11:34, 1 July 2009

Dingo Revision

As some people here have probably noticed by now, I've revised this article more or less completely and to be fair I announce it here so no one will be suprised or offended. Two things will be clear from the start:

• the name "Decker Dog" will not be in it, I'v checked the source and it is simply not scientific enough for this section of the article, was written by a person who did not list it's sources and I couldn't find this name in any of the sources I went through and I've checked around a hundred.
• the see also links will not be included, they are either referenced in the article (e.g. New Guinea Singing Dog or the Azalea Chamberlain dissapearances) or simply weren't mentioned in any of my sources.

I'm gonna enter the revised version tomorrow or the day after.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, entered.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dingo Taxonomy

A further complication is that while it is generally accepted that dingoes are descended from domesticated dogs these particular dogs were probably domesticated from the Indian wolf, not the grey wolf, which is generally regarded as the probable ancestor of most domestic dogs (canis lupus familiaris). However it has recently been suggested, presumably on the basis of genetic evidence, (I cannot find the reference) that the Indian wolf has not cross-bred with any other wolf subspecies for nearly 400,000 years, which could make them a separate species altogether from the grey wolf. {if so British naturalist, W. T. Blanford, working for the Geological Survey of India, will turn out to have been right after all to describe the Indian wolf as a separate species ‘Canis pallipes’ back in 1888!). Gliderman (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, you made a big mistake. When people talked about the Indian wolf they meant Canis lupus pallipes, not specifically the wolves of India. The correct name for the wolves of India, if they are a species of their own, would be Canis india. The pallipes is now, I think, called the Iranian Wolf. And by the way that one was already considered to be the ancestor of all domestic dogs. By the way, this study: A detailed picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA; Peter Savolainen, Thomas Leitner, Alan N. Wilton, Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith, and Joakim Lundeberg (Edited by Colin Renfrew, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and approved June 21, 2004 (received for review March 15, 2004)) found evidence for an east asian origin and confirmed former findings, that the dingo falls in the main clade of dog types, which contains 70% of all domestic dog types and therefore probably the majority of all domestic dogs. The descendence from the wolves of India was based on morphological similarities, however the hallstrom dog is closely related to the australian dingo and does not have these features.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble here

The trouble here is that dingos are widely treated as if they are a separate species (a subspecies of Canis lupus, the wolf) when, IMO (and Tannin's) they are in fact just a wild breed of Canis familiaris (given the ease with which the two "species" interbreed). So I really don't know what to do at this point. Perhaps the hybrid table will do for now. --mav

Canis lupus and Canis familiaris are the same species anyway. The most sensible classification would be to have the domesticated dog classified as Canis lupus familiaris, and to keep the Dingo as it is.

I invite an expert on the Australian Dingo to come and fix this page up. The Australian dingo is a distinct breed, at the very least, which only appears on the Australian mainland, and probably has none but token connection to Asian dingos, as it is widely accepted that Australian dingo descended from domesticated dogs brought from Asia around 5,000 years ago. gwhitescarver at yahoo dot com

The dingo can be considered a distinct species as their DNA is sufficiently different from dogs and wolves, even though they can interbreed. i.e. dingos, dogs and hybrids can be easily told apart by their DNA alone. It's a slightly different definition of species, but is often used in biology and genetics. --Pengo 08:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just like a German Shepherd and a Labrador. That proofs nothing. Dingos and domestic dogs intebred and interbreed far too often to be considered two species.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Plurality

Sort inspired from a series of edits at Thylacine.

I always thought the plural of Dingo was Dingoes, but now I see it is Dingoes.

Other articles, such as octopus have a section explaining the "odd" rules of plural spelling, would someone with the knowledge be able to contribute a similar segment to this page.--ZayZayEM 02:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was Dingos until i looked it up on Dictionary.com, which sites the The American Heritage® Dictionary as saying it's Dingoes (which is why I used that on the Thylacine article. However, a more authorative source for this word, The Concise Australian Macquarie Dictionary, has both Dingos and Dingoes listed. We should mention both form and standardise on one form. I prefer Dingos. --Pengo 08:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The plural of dingo is dingoes, not dingos, which sounds like some Greak bloke who got bullied at school for having a stupid sounding name.

Whichever way is correct, it should be used consistently throughout the article. At the moment, both forms are used. Ishboyfay (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

capitalisation (or -zation if you prefer)

What's with the capitalisation of animal names? It seems like binomial nomenclature gone crazy. According to Naming conventions there is only a weak case for capitalising mammal names. Especially as there is no ambiguity about what dingo (lowercase) means. I notice other animals seem to follow this crazy capitalisation scheme, such as Blue Whale, but not all, eg Horseshoe crab. What's with this? I guess this debate has occurred before. But dingo (lowercase) makes more sense to me, and the Macquarie Dictionary lists it with a lowercase d too. Thoughts? --Pengo 08:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a great many people simply aren't clear on capitalisation in English, and they tend to overcorrect as a result, not just here but in general. Dingo is clearly a common name for a type of dog, and thus shouldn't be capitalised. The only breed names that would be are those with an adjectival portion which is itself based on a proper name - Jack Russell terrier, for instance, or Welsh terrier - and the search for perceived consistency there is probably a big source of the confusion. In some cases the usage seems to have changed to the point where it's simply a variant for of English - Border Collie seems almost never to be written without caps, for instance. (As a side note, treating dingo as a species name would in fact demand that it be lowercase, since species names are never capitalised.) - toh 22:13, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

This is a subject that has been argued here many, many times over the years. In the dog breeds section, we decided that the convention should be that breed names are capitalised and this consensus has held for a long time now. So it's Border Collie and Welsh Terrier. The dingo is a slightly different case in itself because it is usually regarded as a sub-species rather than a breed - and mammals usually are in the non-capitalised form (unlike, for example, birds - where the agreement on Wikipedia is to capitalise) so this one is down to the conventions of the tree of life wikiproject rather then the dog breeds wikiproject. -- sannse (talk) 12:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Backing Sannse up, but also pointing out that another reason the Dingo is a special case is because the ANKC has in fact recognized the Dingo as a breed. Quill 09:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I meant to mention that, thanks Quill -- sannse (talk) 11:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More on species names

My most recent dog breed books count the Dingo, the Carolina Dog, and the New Guinea Singing Dog as dog breeds, not as separate wild dogs.

Found this note on the web[2] (it was just phrased well; this is probably a more definitive site although it prefers c .f. dingo):

This site uses the scientific name of Canis lupus dingo rather than Canis familiaris dingo, because the latter ignores the new scientific data that makes the nomenclature C. familiaris archaic; it is now known that the domestic dog is indeed the same species as the grey wolf and read as C. l. familiaris. Some even classify the dingo as a sub-subspecies of dog, Canis lupus familiaris dingo

However, there is still scientific debate over the classification of the dingo, and a standard needs to be set for this species

Elf | Talk 21:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given the supposed interbreeding rate of dingos with domestic dogs, that won't be problem any longer.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody found a scientific source for the classification of the dingo as a sub-species of the wolf? As far as I know, there seems to be no common view on the subject, whether the dingo is (at least in australia) indigenious, feral (as the article suggests), a dog or a wolf. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Inevitable extinction vs. secure conservation status?

In the conservation status space in the sidebar, the dingo is labeled as secure, but one of the last things mentioned in the article is that the dingo's extinction as a distinct breed is considered inevitable. That seems contradictory to me. LeoO3 22:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of dingos, so you cannot say they are endangered. However, the majority now have some genetic material from other dog species.dramatic 01:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

From other dogs, not from another species. Dingoes are domestic dogs.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have a better photo than the one shown? That has to be the least "dingo looking" dingo photo I've seen.

there are some great photos of various dingos at : http://www.dingosanctuary.com.au/sponsors1.htm most dingos these days are dog-dingo hybrids. thats why some seem to have almost akita-like features. i do agree the main photo is a poor example of a dingo.

My one in the taxobox? Go complain to Taronga Park zoo - they said it was a purebred. (pic taken in 2000, so that dingo may no longer be around). dramatic 09:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin

Not a huge deal, but this page referred to a study done (now cited), but had the year about 1000 years off. I also removed the bit about the Great Pyramids; it seems irrelevant to provide that as a time-scale.--Scrondor 08:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Characteristics

"Unlike the domestic dog, Dingos breed only once a year, generally do not bark, and have erect ears."

i was under the impression that captive dingos or "domestic" dingos will eventually learn to bark from other real dogs. they don't make a habit of it and it is a very rare occurance but they will in fact learn how to do it. is that correct?

another dingo characteristic i heard was that NO dingos are born with rear dew claws. whereas in domestic dogs some are and some aren't... but MOST are born with them (and then clipped at birth?)

Barking is a neotenic feature of the domestic dog, displaying excitement; or uncertainty as to the appropriate action and a call for a more "senior" pack member (eg: human) to do something about the problem. Wolves, dingoes, foxes etc don't do it after puppyhood. OK, yes they do, but only in extreme circumstances. Gordon | Talk, 20 October 2006 @12:30 UTC

That's also not entirely true, foxes in suburbs of London were reported to great people they know with barks.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've never heard that most domestic dags are born with Dew Claws. In all my life I can only remember to have seen only two dogs who had such claws (a Muensterlaender and the second some kind of shepherd-mix I think) and the claws aren't even mentioned in most books I read. And it's unlikely that the purebred dogs had the dew claws clipped because thats forbidden in germany (as long as there is no medical justification for that). So where did this data come from, what's the source?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is linked immediately after the statement. Feel free to check it out.Dark hyena (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Then the material in the source is obviously not correct. Dewclaws on the hind lengs are a characteristic in some dogs and there are even breeds were the standards wants them (I have no idea why, since they don't seem to have any use). Of course it's right that dingos have no dewclaws on the hind legs, as far as we know, but I wouldn't be so sure that most domestic dogs have dewclaws (seems that it even varies among a breed itself) on their hindlegs. So I think it's more correct to wright that Dingos simply have none. My sources for that are: [3] and Florida Lupine News; Volume 7, Issue 1, Spring 2005, "Rear Dewclaws: Causes & Implications"--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjust it as you see fit then. Dark hyena (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Already done. And, just to make sure, I ment the rear dewclaws of course, not the front ones.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Current thinking on dog domestication

The article states: "Current thinking suggests that modern dogs are a mixture of several separate domestications of wolves at different times and in different areas." Actually, this is a disputed idea. Molecular dating suggests that dogs originated from one population of "camp follower" wolves as early as 135,000 years ago (though this is controvertial). DNA comparisons between dogs and wolves appear to show that dogs were not in fact domesticated from different subspecies of wolves at different times--in fact, it suggests just the opposite. Of course, as everything related to molecular datings and the like are highly controversial, and indeed all things paleontological are often fraught with controversy, it's hard to argue that this article is wrong....

If you can cite your sources, then please add this information to the article. It's fine to have articles that contain controversial information as long as the information is not original research. "Some scientists say XYZ because of ABC, while others say ZYX because of DEF." - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A source for the above is New Scientist magazine, issue 2558, dated 1 July 2006. It includes statements such as "in fact we now know that all breeds descended from one species, the grey wolf." It also states that the grey wolf was domesticated 15k years ago which is well before dingoes were introduced to Australia. I'm about to update the article with this info. 203.22.236.14 10:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Call of the Wild" by Jack London

So it's safe to say that Buck was a dingo or was in "dingo state"? (~PassiveBluffing~)

No, Buck was a mixture between a St. Bernhard and a scottish sheep dog. WHat do you mean with "dingo state"?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dingo Photos

Just popped back for a look and saw the new dingo photos. Well done whoever found those shots, they are much better than the earlier one. --Phil Wardle 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article on hold

I think this article is pretty well written and it seems factually accurate and neutral. However I felt that it was missing some important information:

• How long do they live? added
• Perhaps expand a little on the dingo attacks, right now the reader has to go to those other articles to find out anything about them.added more info and refs
• this source tells me that they are protected in some national parks, maybe this deserves a mention. protection in various areas noted
• My MS Word spell-checker set on UK English actually shows up dingos as a spelling error. I realise that this is one of the correct spellings, but you should mention dingoes as an alternative spelling as well (I see this was mentioned on this talk page already but never brought into action)

Once these issues are tended too I think it can be safely promoted to GA status.--Konstable 12:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it meets the criteria, I am promoting it to GA status. --Konstable 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What's GA status? TeePee-20.7 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vocalizations

My family had a 1/2 breed Dingo who used to howl along with the Coyotes back home. She would bark, too. Usually when someone was at the door. Fiercly loyal also, moreso than an ordinary dog.

Discrepancy on longevity

The characteristics say 13 years in captivity with a normal life span of 3-7 years in the wild.EARLIEST EVIDENCE SECTION SAYS DINGOES CAN LIVE TO 20 YEARS.Someone needs to decide which is correct.Saltforkgunman 17:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This jumped out at me too; maybe the 20 year claim should simply be removed, as the other figure is sourced? The second figure is also in the wrong place in the article, breaking the flow. So if they do in fact regularly live to be 20 (which I doubt), this should be mentioned earlier. The age they live to has nothing to do with the earliest evidence whatsoever Steevm 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Baby eating

The Relationship with Humans page ends with sentence: "Dingoes are known to eat human babies." Surely this warrants elaboration, or relating it to the Chamberlain disappearance linked several paragraphs earlier if that is all that is being implied. -BlackTerror 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to baby eating, which had somehow made its way down to the References section. Until someone bothers to link to an article related to the Chamberlain incident, I don't think it is worth mentioning aside from possibly the enormous pop culture references. Jmullman 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment completed for Dingo

As per either a recent request at or because this article was listed as fully or partly unassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment I have just now completed a rating of the article and posted my results to this page. Those results are detailed above in the template box. Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, I am unable to leave detailed comments other than to make the following brief observation: article contributes a depth of knowledge about the subject

However if you have specific questions, please write to me on my talk page and as time permits I will try to provide you with my reasoning. Please put my talk page on your watchlist if you do ask such a question because in the case of these responses I will only post my answer underneath your question.

ALSO if you do not agree with the rating you can list it in the "Requesting an assessment section", and someone will take a look at it.--VS ^talk 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nigger dog?"

What is up with the Nigger "dog" writen at the top of the article, is that a vandalization or what? Because if not that definately needs some explination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.245.194.253 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Shouldnt the Latin name be changed?

Seeing as the Indian wolf (the alledged anscestor of the dingo) is now known to be a separate species entirely to the grey wolf and is now known as Canis Indica, shouldnt the dingo be renamed Canis Indica Dingo?83.187.226.129 11:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if you rename all domestic dogs. Dingos and domestic dogs are definetely the same species. By the way "Indian Wolf" could also mean the "Canis lupus pallipes".--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ROFLCOPTER

The term roflcopter appears at the bottom of "dingos as pets" section. This is a popular adolescent term and the article should be checked for accuracy as parts of this article may have been altered and may be invalid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.28.220 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. This is an excellent article and well-referenced, but the lead is incomplete. It is an excellent start, but it should be a summary of the entire article, not just sections. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoides _talk 12:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 15, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Corvus coronoides _talk 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Know where to find this

I've been searching for this paper:

Redefining introgressed protected mammals: when is a wildcat a wild cat and when is a dingo a wild dog

I think it could help to improve the article section of the conservation-topic, because the authors suggest to lay more importance on ecological function and not genetic purity. Of course I found some sites with the article but only abstracts and the full articles have to be purchased. So, does anybody have the article or know where I could possibly find a free copy?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Source?

This is written in the article: "They have features in common with both wolves and modern dogs, and are regarded as more or less unchanged descendants of an early ancestor of modern dogs." Does anybody know the source for this sentence?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

dingo

allways know not to feed dingos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazel229 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

DNA

"DNA analyses indicate that hybrids originate from male dogs mating with female dingoes and rarely vice versa" Who wrote that? What kind of DNA analyses was that? For now I deleted the sentence.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is no longer up to date. I found nothing that could prove that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why singers in this article?

I know that at least some scientist group the singer or new guinea dingo into the subspecies canis lupus dingo. But as far as I know that grouping is not unquestioned and singers don't look more like dingos than many of the dingo-mongrels in Down Under and they seem to have some unique adaptions. So wouldn't it be better to place them in an article on their own especially given the found differences in their enzymes and the fact that it's not sure whether they still exist in the wild? In fact, it might be possible that they are less "feral" than the australian dingo.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer up to date. The singers have an article on their own.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Feral?

I clicked to this article from a link in Feral in a sourced statement that reads: "Nor should ‘feral’ be used to describe a population of a species which although descended from a domesticated population has severed itself from dependence on humans and lived independently in the wild for a long period. Australian dingoes (Canis Lupus Dingo), for example, although now known to have been descended from dogs which abandoned their human ‘owners’ some 3500 years ago, are not regarded as feral animals." This is inconsistent with: "The Dingo ... is a feral dog which mostly lives independently from humans," from this article. Anyone want to take a stab at with one's incorrect? Focomoso (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of the word feral and the perception of what a dingo is. Historically the dingo is a feral domestic dog, even is some say otherwise. Actually the article is incosistent with itself since the dingo is always treated as something different then a domestic dog although it shows the same features all domestic dogs (even if you don't include the dingo) show, e.g curled tailes, smaller relative brain-size, males mostly fertile throughout the year, etc. We face the same problem in my country, which is why I'm improving our article on the dingo. Once I finished referencing the sources in my article. I will translate it and use it to rid out the inconsitencies of this article as good as I can.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source stating that dingoes have smaller brains than wolves? It would be an interesting addition to the argument that it is really a dog.Mariomassone (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are, actually I'm surpised that it is mentioned so rarely. Or better, I'm surprised that nobody seems to notice that brain size is never mentioned when the characteristics for the identification of a dingo skull are presented (at least I never heard or read that statement). Strange. To your question: there are a few who specifically mention that, but most I know are in german, however there is a PDF-File you should be able to find in the Internet: Consequences of the Domestication of Man’s Best Friend, The Dog; SUSANNE BJÖRNERFELDT, ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS UPPSALA 2007, ISSN 1651-6214, ISBN 978-91-554-6854-5. The book, that this File named as a source was translated in englich under the name: Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation(this is only a link to amazon).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the infobox be changed?

As the dingo is doubtlessly a domestic breed, should it's infobox be changed for that used for other dog breeds?Mariomassone (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a got idea. I think it should stay the way it is. However it might be a good idea to include such an infobox for the section of dingoes as pets. By the way, dingoes belong to the kind of domestic dogs who aren't actually a breed in the strictest sense since they were not selectively bred into their current forms. It is more the way, that someone said "this is a breed" and than made a breed standard (similar to other domestic animals). So it is probably better to leave the infobox the way it is.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Decker Dog?

What is the source for the name "Decker Dog"? When I googled it, the first link was to a terrier breed so what is the source for that name?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference has been added showing Dingoes as "Decker Dogs" (different from the terrier breed you mentioned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorHarris21 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Decker dog" debacle

The buzzle.com reference is almost identical to an earlier wikipedia article; http://www.buzzle.com/articles/dingo-australian-wild-dog.html The page indicates it was published in 4/2/2009.

Compare it with this earlier dingo article wiki from roughly the same time; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dingo&diff=268361938&oldid=267904173

The author of the page has his own page; http://www.buzzle.com/authors.asp?author=26526 One of the few lucky people in the World who get a chance to make their hobby their profession. In my case it's writing, which, i believe, is an effective way to express my thoughts and that is exactly the reason why i am here. Interests and Hobbies: Reading, Writing, Debating, Outdoor Activities like Trekking, Sports, Traveling etc have always fascinated me.

Nowhere is it specified that the author is a biologist, zoologist, naturalist or a dingo keeper.

The Greyhoundzoom page lists three references;

1. Wikipedia itself

2. News.com.au... A search shows no results for "decker dog"... http://search.news.com.au/search?us=&sid=2&as=NEWS&ac=news&q=decker%20dog ..never mind one in which Decker dog is connected to dingo http://search.news.com.au/search?q=decker+dog+dingo&sid=2&us=ndmnews&as=NEWS&ac=news

3. http://dognewsaustralia.com.au/ It has no search engine, and none of the displayed front covers show anything covering dingoes, never mind "decker dogs"Mariomassone (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And what are your credentials to decide what is a viable reference/information? You need to be humble and realize you may not know everything there is to know about dingoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorHarris21 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As do you need to be humble enough to realise when you have made a mistake in promoting an article written by someone with no credentials, who has clearly used an old wikipedia article using a name which at that time was unreferenced by any credible source. At least I can find articles written by the appropriate authorities on the subject. Find an article mentioning Decker Dog by Laurie Corbett, or some other authority on dingoes, then I shall relent.Mariomassone (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit which first introduced "decker dog". The person who added it also put in some nonsensical vandalism at the bottom of the page, which you yourself erased. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dingo&diff=267091289&oldid=266634783 Mariomassone (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone may have added nonsensical stuff, but that has been removed. That doesn't change the fact that information that can be verified with a source is legitimate.

Even if the source itself is dated after said addition (by someone whose intention was clearly to disrupt the article)? Find a source which dates after the wiki addition and we'll discuss it.Mariomassone (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your logic: Suppose someone came and vandalised the dingo article, stating that one of its local names is "cumgarglingcamel". Suppose then that before the page was revised, someone (whose stated qualifications are, lets say, porn filmmaker) came and read the text and incorporated it into their own website. That source would be legit?

This was added to the article along with the first mention of decker dog; "In some remote parts of the world, it is common for Bingo players to shout "Dingo!" to cause a reaction, but since they did not actually yell out the phrase Bingo, they are not forced to forfeit the match. This is considered poor behavior, and has caused a few physical attacks out of anger, thus creating an alterior method of a dingo attack on humans." It is dated January 29 2009. It listed no reference for the name. The site you support was written on February 2 2009. I cant find a single source identifying the decker dog as another name for dingo prior to the January 29 date.

Inughami bargho, in the old version of the now revised dingo page, listed many scientific sources on the dingo written by established authorities on the subject. This new version has even more. I challenge you to find a single one mentioning decker dog. Mariomassone (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried debating this in a civil manner with you. I've listed numerous sources such as http://www.buzzle.com/articles/dingo-australian-wild-dog.html, http://www.greyhoundzoom.com/dingoes-under-threat/, http://www.factsnfacts.com/living_beings_facts/mammals_facts/dingoes/, etc. All you appear willing to do is vandalize the page, throw out personal attacks and insults, and now you are writing pornographic vulgarities. DoctorHarris21 (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

be civil and answer these questions;

• would you class my hypothetical website as a valid source?
• do you admit that the websites you posted use wikipedia as a reference?
• do you admit that the addition of decker dog originally came with no source?
• do you admit that the sources you posted were published after the decker dog addition to the article?
• were you able to find any sources predating the january 2009 revision of the dingo article?

Mariomassone (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Harris21, those sites you list are not reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is completely clear that the authors copied content from this article and don't have any scientific credentials in the field. Two of the sites even list Wikipeda as a source (see [4]). Stop adding unreliable content to the article, there's enough damage done already. --Quartl (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit the article

Hy, I know it might be hard but I must ask the ppeople here who are editing the article not to do it. I'm already working on completely revising the dingo article and with every editing there is the chance that a good soure might be lost afterwards. So please don't edit the article for the time being. If you like you can check my personal page to see how far the article is. You will see it's already bigger now and the finished article will be huge. Every chapter will contain more information than now, if they are necessary of course (no offense but it's not really important what a dental formular a dingo has). There will also be several new chapters. The only exception is the chapter on the interbreeding with other dogs, this one will be small, but don't worry this is only because the topic will get an article on it's own, full with everything relaiable I could find on the phenomena as well als the actual proven impact it had on dingoes and the humans.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be rushing things a bit. I see that some areas of your article still need work. I think it would be best to gradually introduce your work into this article, rather than wait for it to be finished and then completely replace the old one.Mariomassone (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that it's not finished, the complete article will have a size of at least 150 KB. But gradually introducing my work will not help because then people will just add more and we will have the same problems like the ones we have now and the article will again be unstructured (e.g. the introduction of this article here is already to long). That's why I asked for help. On my site, the article can be observed and suggestions for changes can be made. When that is finished this "new" article will replace the "old one".--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

...At which point (150kb) it will be more than three times the appropriate length for an article, and will be in need of splitting to some sub-articles with the main article being more of a summary. dramatic (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Close" the article?

I don't know how it is called in english but I thought, that it would be best to make it that only people who are registered in Wikipedia can further edit the article. When you look in the history you will see that there were several unregistered people who violated the article several times and I think we registered people have better things to do than undo the damage. Do you agree?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is a sea of careless grammar and usage. I'd say it would be a crime to limit editing to "experts" that can't manage a compound sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly they didn't care and the last corrections, could hardly be called that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Density per square kilometer

Hi. In 'Present-day distribution' it is wrong to say that the density of the dingo goes from 0.003 to 0.3% per square kilometer. You see, those two values are exactly the same. The symbol '%' means that the preceeding cipher should be divided by 100. Example: 5% = 0.05

Sometimes the unit of ciphers is mentioned at the last of a listing, like, for instance, mentioning a home range of 2-5 square kilometers. But in the present case, in the first place, the symbol '%' is not considered a unit but an indication of proportion, and in second place, it is not clear if the symbol should be applied to both ciphers or only to the last one.

In any case, it would be much clearer if the range of density was stated without the '%' symbol, which is not indispensable.

Than complain to the authors of the original source.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

You call an animal invasive that has been in Australia before wheels were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.97.168 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Who does that?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"...and mostly all others" MOSTLY ALL?

Look at this sentence:

“This term includes dingoes, dingo-hybrids, and mostly all other feral dogs.”

See what I mean? The third part says “…and mostly all other feral dogs” What does this mean? Most, but not all, other feral dogs? That Dingo is mostly applied to all other feral dogs? How about a pair of parenthetical commas in that case? “and, mostly, all other feral dogs” or, "and, primarily, all feral dogs" or something?

Help!
The question above was added on 28 November 2009 by Chrisrus (talk)

Are you serious with that stupid question? What you just said doesn't even make sense at all, why should "mostly all other feral dogs" apply to the word Dingo if the sentence states “This term includes dingoes, dingo-hybrids, and mostly all other feral dogs.”? Since you are the first one ever to ask that I assume that for all other people it was clear from the start that this sentence means the word "Wild dog" mentioned in the previous sentence.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Mostly all" is a stupid thing to say. As you know, "Most" means "not all", and "all" means "not just most". I fixed this myself some time ago, and no one objected. If you object to the current reading, say so or change it. Oh, and by the way, try not to be an a******. Chrisrus (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually no I don't know, I'm not a native speaker. And nobody objected to the original wording for months. I changed the wording again to "In most cases this term includes dingoes, dingo-hybrids, and all other feral dogs". The whole original sentence means that, out of some reason, dingoes are sometimes not included and in other cases only dingoes and their hybrids are included. I think that should be it then.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Chrisrus (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First Line

"The Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) is a domestic dog which has reverted to a wild state for thousands of years and today lives largely independent from humans in the majority of its distribution."

According to Mammal Species of the World's Canid section, this line is correct to say that the technical term for one referent of the English word "Dingo" is "Canis lupis dingo". As you know, by saying this, they are saying that c.l. dingo are distinct Canis lupus familaris; the domestic dog. Although it is true that this distinct subspecies is descended from familiaris, it has certain features (details of which are found in the article below) not found in familaris. Therefore, it is not technically correct to say "Dingos are domestic dogs..." They are descended from domestic dogs but are not domestic dogs. Therefore, this line should be re-worded, perhaps slightly, to reflect this fact. If you need my help to do this, please ask. Chrisrus (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I say you are obviously too eager. You might mean well, but I can guarantee you that with this you won't do anybody a favor especially not the article. I'm well aware of the site you mentioned but you obviously either overlooked a sentence or did not regard it as important: "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate --artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding ". The dingo is provisionally seperate, but nonetheless it has all the characteristics, all domestic dogs share even if you don't include the dingo, so how can it be anything different? It was not based on my assumption but logical reasoning of scientists. Furthermore, taxonomic classification has not necessary anything to do with relatedness. Quite the contrary, the Singer would be a good example, some want to classify it as a seperate species so that it would get protection not because it is really seperate. But before we go any further which features are you exactly talking about? I have a suspicion but I want you to tell me.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't make these decisions. We must have a standard on Wikipedia or else everything will be chaos. I don't know why, but that standard has been Mammal Species of the World. That's the authority that we've used to organize all of the Canids, as well as the rest of the mammals. They are the experts we rely on to keep up with all the litterature and all the points of view and evidence and come to a decision. Their decision at the moment is this: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000696. As you can see, they have decided to list both Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris as separate subspecies of Canis lupus. If you think that someone is overeager and means well but is wrong, it must be them, not me. This is the same listing that you will find in all other articles on Wikipedia. This article does not contradict this, really, because it does call the dingo "Canis lupus dingo". The problem is, the first line says that Canis lupus dingo = Canis lupus familiaris. They are, by current taxonomy, separate subspecies. Under the comments, as you have know and have quoted from, for the Canis lupus subspecies section, it does say:

Opinion 2027 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (March, 2003a) ruled that lupus is not invalid by virtue of being pre-dated by a name based on a domestic form. Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms. Corbet and Hill (1992) suggested treating the domestic dog as a separate species in SE Asia. Synonyms allocated according to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), Mech (1974), and Hall (1981).

Even though it does stretch the subspecies concept, they've decided, on balance, at least for now, dogs and dingos, unlike other domestic or feral mammals, are not separate species from the wild animal they descended from, but subspecies. We can see that they have decided that dingos are not dogs, either, even though they descend from them, because they list them as two separate subspecies of Canis lupus, on a par with all the others.

Canis lupus hallstromi has not made the cut yet, according to MSOW, so therefore that article, too, must be brought in line with MSOW and Wikipedia articles such as Subspecies of Canis lupus so that all of Wikipedia will agree about how many subspecies of Canis lupus there are and what their names are.

You ask my motivation. I sort wolves and dogs and such on Wikipedia. It's my hobby. I'm interested in the definition of words like "Wolf" and "dog". I sorted the entire Wolf (disambiguation) page, and check every article that links to make sure they all agree. I have no agenda other than this, and as I am no expert, I need to rely on one standard authority to make it all work. This article is very slightly out of order with MSOW, only just slightly. NGSD is still in greater conflict with MSOW.

I'm not planning to change very much about this article. We just need to change the first line so that it says dingos are a separate but equal subspecies from dogs. This is actually a fine article, detailing clearly the morphological and behavioral differences between dogs and dingos. It just can't start by saying "dingos are dogs..." It has to say something like "dingos are a subspecies of Canis lupus which descended from dogs..." I don't really care. All that matters to me is that it doesn't say "dingos are dogs..." Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The minute MSOW changes and says that dingos are just dogs, this article can go back again to saying that. Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I take that on me, I should have showed it to you sooner. I know how they classified it but if you look at the entry for [dingo], you can see that the comment section clearly says domestic dog.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the link to Mammal Species of the World pointed to Canis lupus not Canis lupus dingo. I changed that and added a sentence in the scientific name section that should clarify it. I will also update the entrence on domestic dog and the one on my site.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nature and Scope of this article

This article should decide if it's going to be about all Canis lupus dingo, or just the Australian ones. With minor exceptions, it's mostly about Australian Dingoes (not as much is known about the southeast Asian and New Guinea varieties, at least in the wild). Some things it says about the Dingo are clearly only true about the Australian ones, and other things might or might not be, but it might be burdensome on the article to assure that the reader constantly knows the difference. With Canis lupus familiaris, a provisional separation that this article goes with when it contrasts dingoes with dogs, we have an umbrella article that covers all the subspecies, and hundreds of sub-articles that cover individual breeds. What about following that model? There is already an article about the New Guinea Singing Dog, so we're well on the way.Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Of what use would that be? The readers obviously had no problem with that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

NGSD is Canis lupus dingo "yet to be proven"?

About this line: "Also, there are dog-populations (e.g. the New Guinea Singing Dog), which bear similarities to the dingo, but have yet to be proven if they are indeed the same animal."

Depending on what you mean by "the same animal" (they seem to be somewhat different), this can only be true if you don't respect Mammal Species of the World as the ultimate authority on such matters. There is no indication there that there is any doubt at all that that both the Australian Dingo and the New Guinea Singing Dog are the same subspecies.

I tried to change this but was blocked by one of the participants in the "New Guinea Singing Dog Wars" who seems to have some personal interest in the matter and who left an emotional screed on my talk page telling me I have no business "messing" with the article as I'm not an "expert" like him. While it's true that I'm no expert, but MSOW has plenty of them and it is they, not me, who have listed the old taxonomic word for them, "Hallstromi", as a synonym for C.l.dingo, with no comment amoung the several there saying that anything is provisional about that decision. Also, as an outsider to the battle among experts for such recognition for the animal, at least I have no bias about it.

On what authority, then, can we say that it has yet to be proven whether the New Guinea Singing Dog is also a Canis lupus dingo ? Chrisrus (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I told you to stop messing because that is what you did, you just don't see it (and I am not the only one who says that about you, there are people who now you from other projects). It is true that MSOW lists the Singer among Canis lupus dingo (stated in the NGSD article), but as you said yourself, they are different than the Australian and Thai ones and as stated in the new NGSD article the taxonomic status still needs to be clarified and if the book "Canids" (which was written by several experts) is not good enough for you on this topic, no one can help you. Right now DNA-Anaylses can show a relationship between the two but not whether they have a shared origin or one was descended from the other. Due to these differences and the still not quite resolved status of the Singer, they have an article on their own (in the Singer article it is stated that there is strong evidence that all Singers are now hybrid-dingoes, due to measurments of their skulls).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We both agree that they are different, and both know that in the judgment of MSW2, it's not enough to make a difference for taxonomic purposes. MSW3 just equates them, treats them as the same. As far as current taxonomy goes, there is no difference, because they're both C.l.dingo and that's a subspecies so that's as low as it goes. So they don't say what to call the NGSD or the Australian Dingo or the Asian one. If we are to speak of them separately and need to say what they are, we are left to our own devices as MSW3 had nothing further to say about the matter. We could say "type" of Canis lupus dingo, "kind", "sort", "breed" or "variety" of C.l.dingo, maybe depending on some other authority or convention, but we can't say "subspecies" or any other zoological taxon. As they are dogs, "breeds" would seem well-precedented. I though of a downside to this, however. As you know, "breed" is a noun form of the verb "to breed" which, as you know, can imply artificial selection, and we don't want to be seen as coming down on the any side of any theory that dingos were intentionally bred, or to what extent they were bred, by calling them "breeds". On the other hand, one of the dog breeding authorities, I think it was the AKC, has seen fit for their purposes to concider the NGSD a "breed", so there's that. I myself am agnostic on the issue and wish I knew which authority I could turn to for a definitive answer.

As to the book "Canids", I accept your assertion that it asserts that whether the NGSD is grouped with Canis lupus dingo or not is "yet to be proven". When sources have disagreed about such matters before, the convention on Wikipedia is that "MSW3 trumps all". You apparently disagree that this should be the case, but if we do it here, wouldn't we have to do it everywhere? Have you stopped to think about why this is so important? Think of the ramifications of this on countless articles. Why, just think of how many articles could be effected if anyone could bring in competing experts who disagreed with MSW. In our roles as Wikipedia editors we can't be the ones to decide who's right and whose wrong when experts disagree, and in your roles as experts this is not the place for you to have these things out with competing textbooks or some such. You have to take your cases to the editors of MSW (which I assume you do by just publishing your opinions in peer-reviewed journals) and if they agree and put in in MSW, Wikipedia editors put it in the article. Please see that we need some official body to be the ultimate arbiter of such matters, because of the chaos that doing otherwise would imply. So please re-think the opposition to "MSW3 trumps all" which seems to me clearly implicit in your pointing to the book "Canids" as proof that the status of the NGSD is still unproven. Chrisrus (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As to whether the NGSD article is correct or not when it says that this still needs to be clarified; not according to MSW3! Even though they comment about several other gray areas and judgment calls, there is no indication of any need for clarification. If the new edition of MSW3 indicates that there is some doubt about this status, we should say so at this time.

Reading that over it occurs to me that I should clarify something. I don't want to imply that such notable disagreements amoung experts can't go into articles as long as if we don't assert them as fact. To pick an extreme example, there is an article Andean Wolf that is about an animal that no expert seriously believes to exist. But that's ok because the way the article is done, nothing in conflict with MSW3 is stated as fact, but it's rather phrased in terms such as "an expert asserted that the animal existed, but this has not been accepted" and not "there is controversy as to whether it exists."

Also, any old, rejected taxa should be and are discussed in many articles, but normally end with statements such as “but current taxonomy sees this animal as..,” or maybe “…however, this is not generally accepted” or “recently, some experts have suggested that this taxon be created or changed" or some such. The important thing is that when it comes to statements in leads that say what an animal is or what to put in the taxobox or some such, we need an authority. Chrisrus (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is it stated that "MSW3 trumps all"?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It's just a convention at Wikipedia, I think. The convention here just results from the fact that, when there is some debate about a taxon or some such, someone points to MSW3 and then the other guy says "Oh, MSW3 says that? Oh, I know them, if they say that then let's go with what they say then" or some such because they know about their system and how it works. My point is, I think it's all based on reputation and who informed people choose to listen to. People in situations like this just need an authority, I think, otherwise we will have a situation like that at New Guinea Singing Dog where you have to wait for the last expert person who disagrees to die or something before getting something we can roll with for the purpose of progress. We want to know: "Current scientific consensous is..." It's just the way it is and there's nothing you can do but get something published in a peer-reviewed journal and wait for MSW4. As wikipedians, this is not the place for experts to have it out on talk pages. You have it out somewhere out there in academia-land, and then we wait for the descision to come down from above because Wikipedians aren't trusted experts, even if they are in real life, because how is anyone to know for sure when some Wikipedian claims to be a great expert that knows better than our highest authority? We are not qualified to pass judgement on such matters. I think it all comes down to the Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially the often quoted "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That only works when experts agree. When we need an answer, each field works out it's own authority. Chrisrus (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the taxonomic section states the classification by MSOW3 as well as other still in use classifcations. And when the most used classifcation assigns the dingo to the domestic dog and MSOW3, you can't say anything different in the entry. And as for the "experts", well over there at the Singer page the last expert was seemingly Matznick and the flaws in here statements were quite visible.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

All Singers now hybrids?

Inu, could you tell us what article states "there is strong evidence that all Singers are now hybrid-dingoes"? Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The book "Canids" it was referenced in the NGSD-Version before horseracer undid everything. Why didn't you just look at the references?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus & Inugami, When the author stated that Singers might all be hybrid dingoes, I wonder where he found enough Singer skulls to make a definitive study? Silly man. No one has measured our Singers skulls and our collection has always represented a sizeable %age of the entire Singer captive population and he sure didn't find any in the wild, so what did he measure?? This is a perfect example of a poorly constructed study and shouldn't be referenced as it obviously has no merit. Actually it might be interesting to know what dogs he measured because there might be a shunk in the woodshed in that the collection he measured might have been hybridized and he just generalized the information to the entire NGSD captive population. See what I mean?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow this discussion. Mr. Singerman, where did you see this claim "there is strong....hybrid-dingoes"? Mr. Bargho, are you saying the book "Canids" supports this assertions? This one here? http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/actionplans/canids.pdf ? Chrisrus (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of you. The link, page 235.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Domestic Dog

Because the link to "Domestic Dog" before today linked to Canis lupus familiaris, the clause "The Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) is a domestic dog..." had been, in effect saying "The Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) is a domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)", an obvious contradiction that the author did not seem to intend.

I would at this point edit the above to read .... (Canis lupus familiaris), thereby equating taxa.Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In order to make this sentence say what was intended, I redirected the link to a new article I created, Domestic Dog.

I now wish I'd left it as a simple disambiguation page and not even called it an "article".Chrisrus (talk)

I apologize for the opaque manner in which I tried to call attention to this problem in a previous edit, and for not heartofore offering a solution.

I am no expert, and I ask for review of the article Domestic Dog. Though I have tried to do a good job of it, I am not only open to, but in fact encourage, a complete re-write of Domestic Dog by those more qualified than I. Nevertheless, it is important for Wikipedia that the article Domestic Dog exist, as it allows one to refer to something important to this article and others. Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have been better to state in the domestic dog article that two subspecies are called that according to MSW3, since dingoes are not that different from other domestic dogs (including the topics health, communication, mortality, diet, reproduction etc.). But better than nothing.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. I don't know if the term "Domestic Dog" was the best choice for a term uniting these two subspecies, but it is nevertheless the term we should use when referring to both c.l.dingo and c.l.familairis at the same time. I do thank MSW3 for giving us such a very useful term, and encourage others to use it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I now wish I'd said "I agree with you about that, I'll leave it to you to expand the disambiguation page into an article. As an expert in this area, I am happy to cede the job to you." Chrisrus (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: The term "domestic dog" as used in MSW3 is simply s common name and carrries no taxonomic designation. The synonym list is an historical use record only. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to understand well. I can only ask what to call such a inter-subspecies grouping, or for that matter any grouping that occurs between recognized taxa, what's the proper term of "inter-taxonomic clade"?? Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that many who are against the term are doing this because they think that every domestic dog is also domesticated and I always wonder with what sort of dogs they had to deal. However, genetically and morphologically the Australian dingo is not distinct enough to fully say it is separate, unless you classify all these dog breeds as separate sub-species too, lets face it what looks less "doggish" a dingo or a french bulldog?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed unfortunate that they chose a modifier for the noun phrase that could have the effect on the reader of declaring that any so designated animal must be the result of intentional breeding and the artificial selection that the word implies. There is a similar problem with the NGSD, which the AKA calls a "breed", and I've heard the dingo called that, but I gather that the extent to which intentional breeding had ever been used on these animals in the wild is at least a controversial matter that I'm not sure Dr. Wz and the editors behind the selection of the term meant to take a position on. I think it might be one of the jobs of domestic dog to make this clear. Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're sharing opinions, I hope you won't mind if I offer mine. From my point of view, everything would work out better if they'd seen fit to go back to holding the domestic and wild versions of this animal as separate species. I know the wolf is the father of the dog, but I'll venture to state that in no language on Wikipedia other than Inter-Linguistic Greco-Latin Taxonomish "Canis lupus" (which as you know includes both wolves and dogs); in no language is the word that corresponds to "wolf" not held in opposition to "dog." (Interestingly, the same cannot be said for "cat." and “wildcat“) So the human brain seems to me be neurologically wired to tell friend from foe, dog from wolf. Calling them "Canis familiaris" vs. "Canis Lupus" would greatly help those tasked with using common terms in a sea of taxonomical terms. Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't just say that both are separate species just because one is domesticated and the other is not (language barrier again, in my language the first part of the domestic dog just means a close association with humans and is also applied to mice or sparrows). This classification into two species is simply not objective. And the "in no language", well how do you know that? As for the "friend and foe" topic actually what you just said seems to be a mostly western view of the modern age. Do you know "Myths of the Dog Man?" I recommend it because it deals with those parts of the dog that are regarded as barbaric and savage. Furthermore, you surely have come across such newsletters about "savage feral dogs" or "good dogs gone bad" etc. In such headlines the fear of dogs is interestingly much more irrational as that for wolves. The "friend" is mostly the dog that does what he is said, but woe if a dog does not, than he is the archetypical "foe". And in many parts of the world dogs are seen as something unclean and low and not actually as a friend of any sort.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu & Chris, The three of us understand the proper use of domestic, domesticated and domestic dog, as well as breed and breed of dog, but the average reader does not. If you do not figure out a way to clarify these terms in your articles, you will be fighting people right and left as well as misinforming the public. These terms have to be defined in some manner. When I was reading Corbitt, I was furious with her until I read her definitions, then at least part of what she espoused made some sense. Also, the page numbers. It is poor form to expect a reader to wonder through several hundred pages of text when all you'd have to do is type your page numbers into the reference list. You need to find a good reference for the latest Wilton etal article. It's interesting reading and certainly supports some earlier speculation. I don't know that it's even been published yet in its complete form. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have an issue with that then edit the articles on domestic dogs, domestication and dog breed. That is the place for such things, their own articles, not this one. The way you suggest is good for books but not wikipedia-articles. By the way, if with "Corbitt" you mean "Corbett", I wonder what you read because Laurie Corbett is a man.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B, Sorry I misspelled "Corbett". My error. We're not interested in the sex of the author or the the author's parents choice of names, but thank you for the clarification. You sidestepped my whole point regarding Corbett. I was complimenting him on adding a definitions section to his writing. Definitions are good for explaining one's meanings. You should quote his definitions. They would help explain your meanings too. When you write "if you have an issue with that", we don't have a clue as to what you're referring. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you for real? You tell me that you don't understand this sentence "If you have an issue with that then edit the articles on domestic dogs, domestication and dog breed"?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu, What is the "that" that you refer to?? Please be clear in your discussion. You're hard to understand and follow. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Mr. B., We have read this dingo article several times and we still cannot figure out your rationale for presenting the Dingo as a domestic dog. Actually, your interpretation of MSOW3 is incorrect. The "domestic dog" on the Canis lupus dingo page does not mean the two have the same meaning. You have to agree that the term "provisional" has some meaning yet you persist in painting a picture of a Dingo as a domestic dog. Most people reading your article are going to read domestic dog and think, "Boxer, Poodle, Dachshund, or Shepherd." It was nice of you to add "for thousands of years as an afterthought, but you presume to be the flnal authority in the matter. Scientists all over the world have fought over this stuff with the Dingoes and Singing Dogs for a long time and have now thrown their hands up in the air saying, "We just don't know." Now along comes Inugami who says, "This is the way it is. Dingoes are domestic dogs." Phooey. Accept the commonly accepted way and let it go til some decision is made. Call Dingoes wild dogs and be done with it. Leave them as Canis lupis dingo for now and don't worry about it. I mean, who really cares? If you call them ancient wild dogs, most readers will be happy. Then if you go on to explain how toxon has changed around over the years fine, but don't weight any taxon higher than another. As it reads now, your writing definitely shows you believe they are domestic dogs and that my friend, is a judgment call and portrays you as a person with a bias against Dingoes. Don't come across as being biased. Be neutral. Don't court a favorite theory and when there is a subjective judgment call, make it in favor of the animal, not against. Give the animal the benefit of the doubt. Why not, I mean really, are the animals suddenly going to increase in numbers and rise up taking over the world?? We doubt it. Your writing often gives the impression that you don't much care for animals at all. Surely the miscommunication lies in language translation. We find it hard to believe that you would actively write about something you don't respect so don't give that false impression. Just our opinions, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think you are the one who is misinterpreting things and is biased. Do you ever really think past your own expectations? How do you know what the average reader will think? How many have you actually asked? If the comment in MSOW3 doesn't mean that they are domestic dogs, what does it mean then in your eyes? Furthermore the dingoes has the same features all other domestic dogs share (even if you don't include the dingo) that set them apart from wolves: reduced facial expression, tend more towards a phonetic communciation, the males are usually fertile throughout the year, they can understand human hand signals, smaller teeth and 30 % smaller relative brain size. In addition their mtDNA falls right into the main clade of domestic dog types, they have sabled tales, which some even carry on the back, they have color patterns that don't exist among wolves. How can they be anything different then? Because they are not selectively bred, because the females are usually fertile only once per year? The vast majority of domestic dogs are not selectively bred and only one heat per year also occurs among Basenjis, Indian Pariah dogs, Westsiberian laikas and Tibetan mastiffs. Did it ever occur to you that all those "experts" that classify them as something different do it because they want it that way and because they have a flawed understanding of the domestic dog?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu, Your rationale comparing dingoes to domestic dogs is inaccurate and will not stand up to scrutiny. Dingoes do not have all the same features all other domestic dogs share. You should refrain from making statements that are clearly unfounded, biased, and easily disproved. Dingoes have many features, behaviors etc that are unique only to themselves and NGSD. Additionally, AU Dingoes have some characteristics that are unique only to them. Dr. Wilton etal their 2010 study shoots you right out of the water. You're in way over your head on this. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? What features do they have? STATE THEM!!! And other domestic dogs don't have features that are unique to this and that population? Will you say that the Lundehund is not a domestic dog because it has unique features or the Bullterrier? And if you are referring to this study "Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication" than you are the one that is shot out of the water because the study lists the dingo as a dog breed in an Asian Group together with Singers, chow chow, Akita and Chinese Shar Pei. Or are you referring that they are called "semi-domestic"? Well so are the Canaan dog and the Africanis, do you also say that they are not domestic dogs?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu, All you want to do is argue and dispute everyone else's point of view. You can read the differences between domestic dogs and NGSD/AU Dingoes yourself. Any fool can see that AU Dingoes and NGSD have all the characteristics of wild dogs. You mentioned the Lundehund and Bull Terrier. Do those two dog breeds have all the characteristics associated with wild dogs? No, of course not. You're trying to disregard a few thousand years of natural selection and compare apples to oranges. All you want to do is fight and makes sure no changes are made in your work. So what you're saying is that all canines descended from wolves are called domestic dogs? I think you'd better read Wilton2010 again. He is very specific in defining the differences between AU Dingo/NGSD dna and domestic dog dna. There is a little matter of a few thousand years difference as well as isolation between NGSD/AU Dingo and other canines. Here's the thing, I asked Dr. Wilton, "Is there a definitive DNA test whereby you can identify a New Guinea Singing Dog. His answer was, "Yes. The DNA of a Singing Dog and Au Dingo are nearly identical and they are quite distinct from domestic dogs so it's easy to tell a Singer from domestic dogs. The same if true when Village Dogs are compared to Singers. It's easy to tell the difference." I'd say you can argue all day but I don't see how I can get it down any simpler. So personally, I don't care how he lumped them so long as his statement regarding the DNA differences is clear. oxm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You could get it simple by simply answering my questions: What are those unique features of the Dingo? Is "Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication" the study you are referring to?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving

You don't need to answer any of my questions anymore. This will get to nothing I am leaving the Dingo and Singer-article. It really seems that in the English Wikipedia it is stubborness that wins not facts. There is only one thing the two stubborn people here have teached me: Sometimes the critics of Wikipedia are so right about its authors. And one thing I will not be standing here at acting like a victim, I did what I thought was right but in my eyes it doesn't make any sense to stay here and waste my time. I will return to the original projects and work on them.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu, Being an old teacher, I wish you'd have stayed. I could have "teached" you English and you could have taught me the art of argumentation. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC).

Australian Dingo vs. Canis lupus dingo?

What's the difference between the referents of the term Canis lupus dingo on the one hand, and "Australian Dingo" on the other? In an effort to find out, I turned to the "Synonyms" list for C.l.dingo from MSW3. I googled each of these and here is my report:

1. antarcticus Kerr, 1792 : Very confusing term. I think it was used at one time for the Falkland Island Wolf, but I think Kerr was using it for the Australian dingo, but I couldn’t find the actual article.
2. australasiae Desmarest, 1820: Australian Dingo
3. australiae Gray, 1826 Australian Dingo
4. dingoides Matschie, 1915 Australian Dingo
5. macdonnellensis Matschie, 1915 Australian Dingo?
6. novaehollandiae Voigt, 1831 Australian Dingo?
7. papuensis Ramsay, 1879 Paupau New Guinea Dingo. Not sure if it’s the same as the New Guinea Singing Dog, but it seems like it.
8. tenggerana Kohlbrugge, 1896 This was an animal that lived on Java. It was not related to the Javanese Wild Dog, which is a canid but not Canis. It was supposed to be just like the Australian Dingo, and he remarked that it was already pretty much gone as it was interbred with other domestic dogs. They must have the bones, though, because it’s been identified today as synonymous with dingo.
9. harappensis Prashad, 1936 Here’s what I found:

   "ANGRESS AND REED: DOMESTIC MAMMALS 85 A systematic description of the animal remains from Harappa in the Indus valley, collected during the seasons from 1924-25 to 1980-31. The material — dated back to the third millennium B.C. — contained skulls and other skeletal parts of dog, cattle, sheep and goat, besides fragments from the one-humped camel, the Indian pig (Sus cristatus, all parts of young animals), the domestic ass, the domesticated buffalo and an apparently domestic cat. The dog — named Canis tenggeranas harappensis — showed marked skull- affinities to the Indian wolf (Canis pallipes) and is considered the ancestor of the Indian greyhound. Cattle found were of the humped zebu (Bos indicus) and the humpless type, both regarded as descendants of B. primigenius. Sheep were identified with Oris vignei (domestic us). The goats of Harappa were regarded as derived from Capra aegagrus and their probable cradle of domestication is sought within the Indus valley."

   That's pretty far away from Australia. We can call it the Indian Dingo? Could it be a sort of Missing link between the Indian Wolf and C.l.dingo, something on the way between Indian Wolf and dingo, before familiaris was found?
10. hallstromi Troughton, 1957 This is the New Guinea Singing Dog.
11. Reason dictates that there may be many more animals that may be Canis lupus dingo, but never had taxons suggested for them. I've heard about the Canaan Dog, the Carolina Dog, and the Telomian, just to name a few, which might be on the dingo side of the familiaris/dingo clade.

Does this jive with your vision of the nature and scope of this article? It seem to me to be opening a can of worms for this article to be about the entire referent of the taxon Canis lupus dingo instead of just the Australian Dingo, which is the most likely target for a Wikipedia Search for "d-i-n-g-o" Chrisrus (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Two New Guinea Dingoes or one?

Chrisrus, In #7 New Guinea Dingo is another name for NGSD and was commonly used 100 years ago. Some of us still like the sound of it and use it on a regular basis. The name was popular in Europe and European influenced areas. Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting! If papauensis from 1879 really = hallistromi from 1957, that information would go in a Canis lupus dingo var. hallistromi, if you pardon my shorthand, article. The other possiblity is that the animal Ramsay described was so long and far isolated from C.l.d. var. Hallistromi that it would belong a proposed ''C.l.d.'' var. Paupauensis page and in the proposed Canis lupus dingo (full taxon) page as proof that there was a c.l.dingo of some variety or other on Paupau New Guinea at the time. (By the way, Rasay was basically talking about the ways that the New Guinea Dingo differed from the Australian one, I found the passage on Google.) , but it would not belong on a C.l.d. var."Australiensis" or page, necessarily. Chrisrus (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Scheme for organizing the C.l.dingo Varities

We like your idea for the article. Seems to us an article on dingo should encompass all dingoes. Couldn't you place a note referring to individual dingo articles by their full name as: See Australian Dingo, See New Guinea Singing Dog and then add other articles as they are written.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How about an article about the taxon Canis lupus dingo that explains the taxonomic situation, and then sends the reader to the Australian variety article, that could be this article with the NGSD stuff removed, and then sends you to NGSD in the same way, and then maybe to Paupauensis for the little that is known about it, and then it could build articles like that. We could start a little article about the Indian Dingo, and any other "breeds" that are shown in a reliable source to be on the Dingo side of the familiaris/dingo clade, the American Dingo, Telomian, etc. That would unburden this article which is such a good article about the Australian Dingo to just do what it does best. Chrisrus (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Makes perfect sense. You'll have to be the prime mover and we'll help out as we can. Maybe this activity will attract other editors who have skills I don't have. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

In line 36 or whatever, what information is in need of a citation? Just every word or some in particular?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This Article's Statement about the New Guinea Singing Dog vs. The Citation of Same

Statement in article contradicts its citation

1. Please look at this part right here where it says “Also, there are dog-populations (e.g. the New Guinea Singing Dog), which bear similarities to the dingo, but have yet to be proven if they are indeed the same animal.”
2. Please follow the link to the citation for this statement. Please navigate to page 20 of the book, or page 33 of the .pdf document, which counts the cover and such as “pages”.
3. Please find the section on the New Guinea Singing Dog and read this brief paragraph.
4. Please observe that the statement and citation are saying opposite things.
5. Please edit the article in an appropriate way to reflect this fact, or first discuss here what should be done about this fact.Chrisrus (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. Please feel free to edit anything not felt as being appropriate. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are probably more just like this. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Also See"

Would it be possible for someone to begin an "Also See" section? This article is a "jumping off" place for many other articles. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Borneo Dingo

The only two wiki articles where I've found Borneo Dingo mentioned are the Dingo article and the Pariah dog article. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We've got two photos and the synonym "Iban Hunting Dog": Chrisrus (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Borneo dog posing
• 
  Borneo dogs eating

Wow, those are great photos. This article is chocked full of good pictures The Dingo mother and pups as well as several others are just outstanding!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The picture of the Borneo Dingo posing is so, so Dingo. Notice how the ears pitch forward and the Dingo face? This one has more white than NGSD generally but it is definitely a dingo type. The photo of the Borneo dogs feeding could be a photo of Singers feeding. That photo reminds me so much of one we have of 4-5 young NGSD crowding around me wanting my attention. Same red coloration and markings. Awesome!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

These Borneo dingoes are longer legged than a Singing Dog, but then most other dingoes are longer legged. Their skinny condition also makes their legs seem longer. There used to be some really short legged Singing Dogs in one particular bloodline. We attributed the shortened legs to them being "Highland Singers" or Singers adapted to mountainous terrain. Just a theory. The really short legged ones in the captive population came from the Old Dingo line which traced directly back to the San Diego Singers from 1959 to 1962 who were early Singers raised at Taronga Park.. BTW "Highland Wild Dog or Highland Dog " are additional names for NGSD. Love these Borneo photos. Hope you can use them someplace. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Reference:

Chrisrus, Here's a link to another reference you might use. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37569783/ns/technology_and_science-science/?GT1=43001 osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ecological impact after arrival

I think the first paragraph in this section where it states it is suspected that the AU Dingo is responsible for the extinction of three different animals/birds is not cited properly. I can't find any statements in the cited reference assigning their demise to the AU Dingo. Someone may want to reread and check me on this but I think that paragraph and reference should be reverted. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma AU Dingoes

Editors, Yesterday a friend of mine and I drove down into Oklahoma to observe and compare, to New Guinea Singing Dogs, two of the six AU Dingoes that have recently imported to the U.S.. I took some still photos and a few video clips(no sound) of them. The video clips are pretty snowy zoomed in, but the subject matter is interesting and educational. I wanted to ask those of you who have a major interest in this article whether you'd be interested in any of the photos or video for use wih this article? I could also load them on wiki media for you to peruse if you liked. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma AU Dingoes

Editors, Yesterday a friend of mine and I drove down into Oklahoma to observe and compare, to New Guinea Singing Dogs, two of the six AU Dingoes that have recently imported to the U.S.. I took some still photos and a few video clips(no sound) of them. The video clips are pretty snowy zoomed in, but the subject matter is interesting and educational. I wanted to ask those of you who have a major interest in this article whether you'd be interested in any of the photos or video for use wih this article? I could also load them on wiki media for you to peruse if you liked. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds great. However, as they are the focus of the Australian Dingo article, that place might be they best place for them. We could put it here instead/in addition, but the best thing might be to show some of those lesser known varieties. Chrisrus (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tag this article

Could someone who knows wiki procedures please tag this article as in need of clarification. It has multiple issues. As a person reads, the article becomes extremely confusing and the reader doesn't know whether the author is discussing AU Dingoes, Thai Dingoes, or just Dingoes in general. There is a lot of good referenced material in the article if it were organized properly. Seems to us that this should be a "Dingo" article and then there should be other articles on AU Dingo, Thai Dingo etc. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a thing would only be usefull if there would be enough information. And right now there is not enough information on Thai dingoes for an article on their own. As for your "issue", the majority of information simply comes from Australia because dingoes have been most intensively studied there. The information about Thai dingoes is nearly exclusively based on the research of Corbett. By the way this article has been here for nearly a year and has been reviewed several times so the majority of readers obviously have no issue with it. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.B, Unlike yourself, we can't speak for others reactions to an article. All we're saying is that to our way of thinking, the article is very confusing, The article seems to be predominately about Australian Dingoes, yet it uses the title of Dingo. Seems a bit odd, doesn't it? There should be a separate article on Australian Dingoes and a separate on for Dingoes in general. As to references, so what if they're limited for Thai Dingoes? An article has to start somewhere. Some people are of the opinion that any of the identified Dingoes deserve articles of their own. I find it disturbing that AU Dingo should be lumped in with Dingo in this confusing manner. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But you can read don't you? If it is so confusing why didn't anybody else object? And who is we? Did it occur to you that the problem might be your perception? By the way that article was already reviewed several tinmes long before you came along so it obviously can't be confusing.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inu, Let's talk about perception. If English and German are as confused and mixed up in your brain as they are in your writing, you do indeed have a perception problem. Perhaps others did object, but were run off by the editor??? Or perhaps others have objected, but see how other objections have been treated and decided it wasn't worth the fight. When you ask a question regarding why only I find your article confusing, it's like asking why a hawk flys at 500 feet instead of at 510 feet. Heey, that's the way it is. I think your article needs help. Simple as that. Then again, maybe there hasn't been anyone who has read your stuff who cares enough to try to do something about it. Your article is poorly written or at the very least, let's say it needs a bit of work. Or to put it in your style, your article is mostly simply poorly written. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you really need to accept some help on a rewrite. If not me then anyone who has both the needed subject matter knowledge as well as command of the English language. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if it is so poorly written then why did the previous editors not say so? Despite what you claim here I didn't scare anybody of, the Dingo-article was on my own page for months and plenty of people edited it before and afterwards. And your claim that nobody cared enough, well somebody did care enough to make an own article on attacks of dingoes and others cared enough to edit the language time and again. And if you ask yourself why I stopped listening to you it is due to your actions: you complain about the pictures in the Singer article despite the fact that you breed them and could provide plenty of pictures on your own, you wanted me to add page numbers but deleted them after I entered them and then claimed that you didn't do so although the article history proved it, you disregard sources you don't have in fron of you, in the Singer article you put the info about the various names in the entry, you added all sorts of stuff you had no references for and that in a manner that the text sounds like you just put one note after another, your first reaction here to Corbetts claim that Singers might be hybrid dingoes was that it can't be true.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is in serious and definite need of a massive overhaul. It's poorly written, contradictory and unclear. The English needs major work and is at time unbearably bad. I'd love to give it a major overhaul myself, but I'm no expert on dingoes. Because the article is so confusing there is a serious risk that in rewriting it I'd misinterpret the original text and end up writing something that is factually incorrect (albeit understandable). This is not to knock those who have put time and effort into writing this article in the first place - but it now needs an editor (in the sense of someone who edits for readability, style and grammar) who can polish the article so that it progresses from its current state to actually becoming a good article. 84.114.214.144 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox

I added a taxobox, it was reverted by Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs) with the edit summary rationale of "User needs to include the *D* part of BRD, 1 taxon, 1 taxobox. Two arts are a mess, this isn't helping." I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it does to those who are familiar with this article(s). When people look up the dingo, and they don't see a taxobox, it looks... pathetic. No one is going to go to Canis lupus dingo and expect to see a taxobox, because what they are searching for is the dingo, which had no taxobox. What say any of you on this? Doc talk 06:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to merge the two artcles? Cygnis is right that we don't have two articles with the same taxobox. Chrisrus (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we definitely should merge the two articles, especially if it means getting the taxobox onto the article that anyone would actually search for. The animals listed in that other article all belong to the same taxonomic subspecies, so there really is no need for a separate article for C. lupus dingo because of the Thai Dog or the Siamese Hairless Boran Dog; there are no references anyway on any of the information on those particular dogs. The other article has 13 references to the Dingo's 124 references, as I have noted before. I don't see any good reason for C. lupus dingo to be an article separate from this one. Doc talk 19:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, but what if the problems with that article could be fixed? Thare so many studies on the Australian Dingoes that it seems to me more than enough to justify their having an article of thier own. Beesides, very many statements in this article about its referent would not be true of Thai dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Creating a second article was a good idea, it will [eventually] help to clarify a complex situation for the reader. cygnis insignis 09:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure that what you're saying would convince me that there needs to be two articles on the same animal. The "Australian Dingo" was introduced from the Orient 5,000-6,000 years ago - the "Thai dog" and all the others are the same subspecies. If you look at the Domestic dog taxobox, you will see that the dingo is a subspecies of that animal. But I digress. If there's going to be a taxobox on only one of these two articles, it needs to be on this one, and not the other. Doc talk 05:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading some articles or books may convince you. For example, there would not be a subspecies of a subspecies, as you have asserted. Dingo, Australian dingo, and so on are common names, not taxonomic concepts, that may refer to a subspecies of Canis lupus or a hybrid of two separate subspecies. cygnis insignis 09:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading some articles or books may convince me? Please don't get cute with me, Cygnis. There has been a taxobox on this article since 2003[5] all the way up until you decided to remove it just a couple of days ago. I completely disagree with this move. If I have to get outside opinions on this I will, because I am not sensing that you are listening to what I am saying. The taxobox belongs back here. Doc talk 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel you are listening to what I'm saying. This article as a big enough job, don't you think, dealing with just the Australian Dingo, than having to also duely cover others in the C.l.dingo category? The New Guinea Singing Dog is not the referent of many if not most of it's statements, even though it's taxonomically the same as the dingo it's very different in some ways. The Thai dog is a very ordinary dog, even if mammologists say it's the same animal physically, it's not like this dog at all in important ways. The Telomians and Basenjiis might be C.l.dingo, but they are clearly very different not only from each other but also from the Aus Dingo. Bali Street Dogs have many studies about them and could have an article of their own. Can you respond to this point, please: how can this article do justice to all these dogs as once while still doing justice to the Aus Dingo? It'd be too much for one article. Chrisrus (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What brought me here was the lack of a taxobox on this article. Imagine my surprise to discover that in all the years there has been one here, you two have decided as of just a couple of days ago that since you have copied the taxobox from this article and pasted it onto your article, you should remove this taxobox. It's wrong. I don't know where you found this thing about how we can't have duplicate taxoboxes, but for you take the original one from this article, slap it on yours, and then remove it from here is not going to fly. Doc talk 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right that it needs something in that space. Let's replace the taxobox with a dingo dogbox for each variety. And leave the taxobox about the taxon in general. Look at the NGSD page or the tree of life project page, this job was being discussed and done. Mojo made a good dingo box. Chrisrus (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's best to wait for others to weigh in on this. Since the change is so recent and dramatic, and the taxobox has been here for so long, I'm not at all sure that there is consensus for this change. See this. BRD is a helpful rule to avoid edit-warring, but consensus for something like this needs to be established. Doc talk 19:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've listed this discussion at WP:AWNB, but I have one question at this point; Is there a policy or guideline that prevents the almost the same taxobox from being in two articles? --AussieLegend (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe not. You would have to have foreseen the need for such a stipulation to write such a guideline, and taxoboxes indicate one referent and scope. What about the "var." stipulated taxobox for all articles about animals classified as Canis lupus dingo? There may be some problems with citations for such a thing, please use "history" to view my edit comments on my last few posts here while I was creating the varbox below. Chrisrus (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Density is a number, not a percentage

"The density of the wild dog population varies between 0.003 and 0.3% per square kilometre" should have the "%" sign removed. 114.198.82.121 (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I went to source[[6]] and replaced it. Bhny (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Did they arrive with the first Australian humans? Absolutely not!

This article http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/the-dingo-came-to-australia-from-southern-china.htm in Australian Geographic quotes experts pushing the date of the origin of the primordial ancient ancestor of the Australian dingo in China to a much earlier date than other experts do. Let's put this at an outside estimate, 18,300 years ago it evolved in China and then it'd have to have made it way from there to Australia, which would have taken some time. Does anyone have a date older than this in any WP:RS? What's the oldest estimate you can find for the arrival of dingoes in Australia?? Please allow it for the moment as a far more than conservative generous maximum of 18,000 years, and please read on:

Wikipedia "knows" that Australia was populated by humans much, much earlier than that. A quick scan of the article Lake Mungo remains, for example, for a very late date returned tenuous initial conservative guess at the most generously recent 28,000 years ago, and the rest increasingly informed and much more ancient dates.

So as you can see there is no possible way that dingoes could have arrived with the first Australian people.

Whether you think this is important in terms of article improvement or not to my mind seems to depend on how likely you think it is that the average reader coming to this article whom we should assume initiallly totally ignorant about dingoes, would benefit by being told that Dingoes and people didn't arrive together; they arrived at points in time separated by at least ten thousand years, and very likely much, much further apart than that. Because it seems to me that most people assume they came to Australia together. I for one origninally assumed that. Understand, this article doesn't say that they did arrive together, but I'm hoping you will agree that it would improve this article for it to clearly state that they didn't arrive together because readers would benefit from hearing that in as brief and upfront a way as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

dingobox

Australian Dingo
Origin	Australia
Notes	Wild or Feral Native Australian Landrace
Dog (domestic dog)

Perhaps some mention of the subspecies C. lupus dingo, "Free-ranging dog#Wild Dogs", and/or a hybrid of these. However, this should be well supported by the text of the article with citations (if it isn't already). I'm not a fan of infoboxes ..., cygnis insignis 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Placental or marsupial?

I assume that dingoes are placental mammals? If so, given that Australian native mammals are largely marsupial I think this should be emphasised somewhere, preferably at the top.

TJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.170.121 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Naturally dingoes as canids are placentals, and this is probably worthy of mention in the introduction, however the rest of this inference is questionable. Marsupial species are more abundant in Australia and Wallacea than elsewhere, but there are also a range of rodents and many niches filled by reptiles or birds. It would be more accurate to say that dingoes were the largest placental species and the only member of the carnivora in Australia before european arrival. There is a lot of argument about how big a part the arrival of the dingo had on the extinction of the Australian megafauna as the extinction also coincided with climate change, arrival of humans and change in fire regimes and floristics. We should be careful not to oversimplify this debate. Djapa Owen 23:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

To be or not to be

Regarding the following phrase in the Dingo article: "these populations are only be controlled when they pose a threat to the survival of other native species" ... the "be" should either be omitted or changed to "to be" or whatever, depending on the meaning. I'm am neither a Dingo environmental expert nor an English linguist to know how to change this small little word myself. Mieliestronk (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit done as suggested. Since reference is specific to NSW this is clarified also. Djapa Owen 12:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Albino vs white

None of my business, but I think the white Dingo is a white Dingo, not an albino. Pink ears are common on some white dogs and is not necessarily an albino characteristic. If it's eyes were pink, then yes, but we can't see its eyes. The nose is dark. I think it's just a white Dingo and is probably a hybrid?? We've raised lots of white Huskies with pink ears and blue eyes. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

i volunteer at my local zoo walking the pure dingoes. what i have noticed is that there are 3 distinct colors of dingoes. white with traces of brown and dark eyes (indeed not a true albino at all), tan colored and a very dark red. the dark reds normally originate from far west australia but not always. so far i have yet to see a reason behind coloring or a location guide for them. back on subject though a white dingo is just that, white not albino. same argument for a white lion that sometimes an all white is thrown out but it still has color pigmintation which is what an albino lacks.152.91.9.153 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Feral or not?

Could someone who has a copy of L. Corbett's book please check to make sure he calls AU Dingoes "feral"? Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

have not read but as someone who deals reguarlly with wild dingos for a zoo prior to rerelease I am yet to meet a "feral" dingo. most people incorrectly think of a dingo like a coyote in that it will attack if it can. in reality it is more like a wolf pack. they will take attacks of oppurtunity against easy prey but normally will ignore larger humans or even become friendly with it. i have pet purebloods and a few generation mix bloods and they do not have anyof the dangerous traights you might expect with a wild animal. anyone who breeds huskies/mallamuts from wolves should understand what i mean in that the wild traights are very easy to break from a canine. interesting however cats breed from wild animals like the african serval hold genetic feral traights for over 20 generations. so i am curious if anyone has some really diluted dingo breeds that we can confirm if issues occur or not?152.91.9.153 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this misses the point. Feral is a description of whether a species is desired or not, much the same as weeds among plants. A dingo is a canid and like all canids, domesticated or otherwise, they are predators. If they are living in an area where their predation is not a problem then they are not feral. If they are living in a sheep farming area and preying on sheep then to the sheep farmers at least they are feral. I have owned two dingo crosses, and both had well developed predatory instincts. One (1/2 dingo) could catch birds flying over, and the other (1/4 dingo) was a phenomenally effective and tactical cat hunter. Both were amazingly loving and loyal dogs with very high intelligence. I would not call them feral myself, but I beleive that whether or not an animal is feral is a value judgement. Djapa Owen 11:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

For most of my fairly long life I have understood the word feral to refer to an animal or group of animals who live in the wild but were at one time domesticated. I am supported in thus understanding by dictionaries and by WP Feral. 152.91.9.153 (Talk) seems to use the term to mean aggressive or dangerous while Djapa Owen explicitly defines the word as undesirable. A correct use of the word is to call mustangs and Australian wild dromedaries as feral. But there are also feral animals living in the same region as wild ones of the same species, such as escaped racing pigeons (rock doves). The issue as to whether dingoes are feral is not a value judgement. It is a serious scientific issue depending on the factual issue of whether, when they arrived in Australia many thousands of years ago, they were domesticated or wild animals. The issue is not helped by emotive, incorrect use of the word feral. Spathaky (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point Spathaky and having also consulted some dictionaries I see that 'feral' has some particular implications in Australian usage which are not reflected in proper British usage (see http://www.feralcheryl.com.au/), and the implication that anything feral is undesirable is an Australian attitude not actually implied by the word. The dictionaries I have checked give wild or undomesticated as the primary definition and mention reversion from a prior domesticated state as a secondary definition, and Dingoes are certainly wild undomesticated dogs by nature. This would make any argument about whether they were domesticated recently enough to qualify unneccessary. Of course I imagine one would think twice about sharing a dug-out canoe with a wild dog for a long voyage so the first dingoes that came here must have been domesticated.

As for implications of predatory nature or viciousness, there is nothing in the dictionary definitions to support that. Parts of Australia have parge feral populations of rabbits, but I have never felt under threat from them. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling

One thing I'd like to point out is that Australian is spelt "Austrailian" in this article under the section "Azaria Chamberlain dingo attack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cram42 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed - thanks for catching that! Doc talk 09:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The sentence referred to above is a huge oversimplification of the case. The Chamberlain case might have been overturned, but the original finding was based on a number of pieces of evidence, not just a popular misconception about dingo behaviour. We do have proper legal process here, and its break down in this case was more than trial by media. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Speed of travel

The dingo can run until 10 mph (15 km/h) in marathon, 25 mph (38 km/h) on average during the sprint, with a top speed 40 mph (64 km/h) for very short distance.

In Australia preys as kangarooes and emus (powerful and very fast), are difficult and dangerous. Dingoes prefer, rather to hunt sheeps, rabbits, and wallabies.--Angel310 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources proving these comments? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not an accurate assertion, Emu seem to be quite difficult to subdue and do not make up a significant proportion as adults, but young emu are sometimes taken. Kangaroo however are easy prey and make up a significant part of dingo diet even in sheep country (see the references on diet in the article). As for wallabies vs kangaroos, have you compared a swamp wallaby or agile wallaby with a grey kangaroo lately? I don't think the size of their ears makes any difference so this suggestion makes no sense. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on humans

The article states that the Chamberlain case is the only reported attack on humans which has occurred outside Flinders Island. This is not true. Attacks involving nipping or biting people on the hand have been reported many times in Kakadu, Uluru and other places where stupid tourists feed dingoes. This is why every national park where there are dingoes has signs warning people not to feed them. We should not be pretending that dingoes are demonic murderers or angelic creatures of peace, they are dogs/wolves and behave as such. Djapa Owen (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See dingo attack. Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

See [7] or [8] (yes it calls them wild dogs) or [9]. Referring to another Wikipedia article which states that it is incomplete is a bit illogical. Djapa Owen (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not why I posted the link. Please improve not only this and but also that article with any/all info you have on the subject. Chrisrus (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"they are usually just referred to as dogs"

I think the last sentence of the introduction needs sorting out, but am not sure how to re-word it. The current version: "Many stories and ceremonies are connected with the dingoes, in which they are usually just referred to as dogs." really does not make sense. The stories and ceremonies referred to are Aboriginal traditional stories and ceremonies which do not originate in English so the comment "in which they are usually just referred to as dogs" is nonsensical. If that section is removed the remainder seems very abrupt. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed that part and combined the last two sentences. Bhny (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a dog

The caption under the missing classification says "dog"

Why not "dog" of Australian myth and tourism ? Like the American "bison" in Yellowstone Park, USA ... also good for tourism

G. Robert Shiplett 22:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that we have a long way to go on this yet: "domesticated subspecies of grey wolf". No, I don't buy that either.

Kortoso (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

New classification of Dingo as individual species

As of today the Dingo is considered separate from the grey wolf and wild dog. Please see article from Journal of Zoology in following link as evidence of this. The official classification is now known to be "Canis Dingo" where it used to be "Canis lupus dingo" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jzo.12134/abstractGordo89 (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why "as of today", and why this original research article should be taken as the ultimate truth? Materialscientist (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it is a confirmed alteration the the very basis of the taxonomy of the creature. Can you please actually read articles before outright rejecting them. Here is a newsclip direct from the researching University: http://science.unsw.edu.au/news/study-dingo-distinct-speciesGordo89 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have again update the page to the correct taxonomy. Please refrain from editing this back to the previous format as it is incorrect based on the new research published in the Journal of Zoology in the first link I provided above. As Stk1986 stated on your talk page correctly the exact same issue: " The dingo has been proven NOT to be descended from the wolf, & is distinct from domestic dogs.

Canis Dingo is the correct form .

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/animals/dog-gone-scientists-confirm-the-dingo-is-a-unique-species-20140328-35onp.html

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-02/fraser-island-dingo-advocates-hope-new-classification-promises-/5360910

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/04/02/3976721.htm

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dingoes-arent-just-wild-dogs-180950384/

http://m.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/classing-of-dingoes-may-bring-protection/2218635/

http://theconversation.com/dingo-classified-as-a-distinct-species-25133

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2594993/The-dingo-NOT-wild-dog-Creature-introduced-Australia-5-000-years-ago-species-right.html

Please read every scientific piece above and then give me a reason why you think you can delete my edits. Tell me why these findings with proof are non-binding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stk1986 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)" Gordo89 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) by the US Government says Canis lupus dingo is valid and Canis dingo is invalid. The Australian Faunal Directory by the Australian government uses Canis dingo as the main species name for dingo, with a note "Full species status restored by Crowther et al. (2014)". Olli Niemitalo (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

IUCN also uses Canis lupus dingo. Britannica puts it more neutrally as "Most authorities regard dingos as either a subspecies of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris dingo) or a subspecies of the wolf (C. lupus dingo); however, some authorities consider dingos to be their own species (C. dingo)". Gordo89, we write an encyclopedia and must reflect worldwide majority views; that is, we need secondary sources reflecting opinions of major organizations, not primary research (and off course it "builds upon previous studies", this argument has no weight). Materialscientist (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I vote this be taken further as dispute resolution. You have received three separate individuals make comments supporting this change and you are still against it. Gordo89 (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The biggest experts on the dingo, such as http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1098535.The_Dingo_in_Australia_and_Asia Laurie Corbett, have long preferred to classify it as "Canis dingo" so that they can add their own subspecies at a level below. It helps them with their work. Other experts who are "Save the Dingo" proponents advocate it being declared a species because that will help protect them. However, this is resisted by international mammal societies, see here, http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000751 They in fact only provisionally accept the division of familaris from dingo, the proviso being that one accept that they are both at the same time a subspecies of wolf called "[domestic dog]", see their comments here: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000738 "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms. Corbet and Hill (1992) suggested treating the domestic dog as a separate species in SE Asia. Synonyms allocated according to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), Mech (1974), and Hall (1981)." We normally go by MSW unless there is some clear consensus that the general mammal community is going to change it. If another taxonomic system is in use, however, we do list it secondarily, which is what we should do here, I think. Anyway, the referent of this article is just the Australian Dingo, there are many other animals also now filed under dingo, including the New Guinea Singing Dog. Chrisrus (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy is a highly argumentative subject. Once you have been around it a while you will find there are ongoing discussions about quite a few taxa, and that proponents/opponents of change always argue their case claiming it is a clear question and that their argument is unassailable. When a reasonable argument is raised we should mention it in the article, but a newspaper or magazine article stating that "as of today" the classification changes is not the most conclusive an argument. We should be following the lead of the ABRS (the official Australian government system) until the consensus in the relevant journals is established. Djapa Owen (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Australian Faunal Directory cited above is curated by Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS). I'd rather wait for international adoption of Canis dingo as the main name before we do the same, because ARBS is a program within Parks Australia Division of the Department of the Environment (mission statement: "To advance a sustainable Australia: our environment, water, heritage and communities."), and their taxonomy may have a conservationist bias. I agree with Chrisrus in that we should list Canis dingo as a secondary name. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a fair compromise. We should list Canis Dingo as an alternate name at the bottom of the taxonomic information box underneath where it says Canis lupus dingo. It seems to me from what I have read, predominantly Australian information points to it as being Canis Dingo and international information refers to it with lupus. I am satisfied to have Canis Dingo listed as an alternate name.Gordo89 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions to this.

I have updated the page to reflect the consensus here. (forgot to sign in and state reason "Editing in line with discussion on talk page to include Canis Dingo as an alternate secondary name but not an 'official' name until confirmed by other international taxonomic communities.")Gordo89 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

When is a reference not a reference?

Why, when it's a note or comment!

Ref 7, under the heading Nomenclature, currently reads as:

Since interbreeding of dingoes and other domestic dogs is regarded as widespread and occasionally hard to detect, and because no distinguishing feature is considered as completely reliable, it is not clear whether the observed dogs are dingoes or not. Furthermore, in some topics, there is no distinction made between dingoes and other domestic dogs. Due to these problems, the article only uses the terms "dingo" and "dingo-hybrid" (respectively "dingo-crossbreed") when the used literature named the respective dogs as such. Otherwise, the terms dog or wild dog have been taken over from the used literature.

This is not a ref, it's a comment on this article. I've deleted it.

Wayne 03:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Why two articles?

Just curious as to the reason that both this article and the separate Canis lupus dingo article exist. It seems to me that the purpose was to account for the distinction between the Australian dingoes and the ones found in Southeast Asia, but this article already covers those to some extent, and is clearly the primary topic of the scientific name (regardless of the species vs subspecies debate), and a move to "Australian dingo" was attempted back in June 2010, at the same time the article with the scientific name was created, but the move was reverted a few months later. So I guess I'm wondering is the existence of a separate article really needed, or is it hair splitting? Should we merge the little material on the SE Asian dingoes into here and have the scientific name redirect here? oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some much out there, in terms of studies and other reliable sources about specifically the Australian Dingo that it seems to merit it's own article. The same could be said about the New Guinea Singing dog. There's no need to merge this article with the NGSD article and the Canis lupus dingo article just because they fall under the same taxon. This article rightly does mention those other C.l. dingoes, but only to the extent that knowing about them is one of the important things to know about the Aus Dingo. Other than being so closely related, they aren't like the original Australian Dingo, many of them, such as the Thai Dingo, are just ordinary dogs, kept as pets and living as ordinary street dogs, not fending for themselves in the wild and integrated into the ecosystem, a wild true dog. So there are many, many statements in this article that we wouldn't want to imply are also true about the NGSD or the Telomian and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lineage

Canis lupus dingo covers more than just the Australian dingo, it also covers the New Guinea Singing Dog and possibly some others yet to be categorised. The term Single Source of Truth is not claiming that it is the truth, it is proposing that there be one source, in this case on the sub-species page. Therefore, further development and discussion/disagreement on the lineage needs to be conducted at the subspecies level. No points of view have been lost - and nor were any added - because none has been offered, this is simply a summary of scientific research up until October 2015. Readers might like to actually follow the link and read it before pre-judging. I am sure there will be a number of comments yet to come, please make them on the Canis lupus dingo Talk page. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you look at the discussion above you will see that your decision to change the meaning of the Dingo article has been discussed and reject on many occasions over the last 5 years because the name Dingo is synonymous with Australia and is by far the WP:Primary Topic. Gnangarra 02:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Rebutted, this matter is the lineage of Canis lupus dingo, not specifically the dingo. The two are entwined.

Gnan, User:Medeis, you have both reverted my good faith edit without articulating which WP:POLICY it has breached. This is not in accordance with WP:BRD - please articulate, else restore. William Harris • talk • 02:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your edit seemed like an obvious honest glitch on first glance. But I was shocked enough by your "one single source of truth" comment when I read it that it seemed unfair to bring up such a faux pas. The consensus here is clear, reflecting the controversy when it exists via WP:ATTRIBUTE is what we do. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

<edit conflict> the page history shows we both explained why we reverted I also contacted you directly pointing out that given the significance of the changes that you should discuss it here[10] but you archived that and started the discussion here. I have my opinion here that the animal known as a Dingo in Australia is the primary topic and therefore should be at this article. I also highlighted that your changes have been an ongoing issue for years and has been rejected every time in the BRD cycle such a major change could be seen as also being pointy or disruptive as I said in my comment the revert was without prejudice(WP:AGF) please discuss first. Gnangarra 02:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The disambiguation hatnote states that This article is about the Australian Dingo, and yet I see a taxabox with a distribution map of SE Asia and a picture of dogs in Borneo, I read reference to dogs in the USA, and past distribution spanning Asia. There seems to be a contradiction between what the consensus was and what the article purports. Nonetheless, you have undone my edit and the responsibility in bringing this topic from the genetic analysis of Savolainen in 2004 forward to what we know today now falls on you. Perhaps there may be some assistance from those who formed "a consensus" but allowed this article to atrophy for the past nearly 12 years. Best wishes in that. Regards, William Harris • talk • 06:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

He's right. The primary is the AusDingo. Let's remove everything about the others and put it in dingo (taxon) and leave this article to be about the Australian dingo, that is all. It enough for this article to cover without tracing the lineage back to China and the rest when that's what dingo (taxon) refers to.