Talk:Labrador Retriever/Archive 2

Origin

To state that *all* labs are descended from on foundational dog is incorrect. From the Bucceleuch website: "In the 1830’s, the 5th Duke of Buccleuch was one of the first people in Britain to import dogs from Newfoundland to use as gun dogs on his Scottish estates. A strong bloodline developed, beginning with Buccleuch Ned in 1882 and Buccleuch Avon in 1885, and all Buccleuch Labradors can be traced back to those first imported dogs. While Buccleuch Labradors were primarily working dogs and never competed, their bloodline has formed the ancestry of many champions."

They were definately a major breeder, but not the only one. The AKC site staes "Accurate pedigrees of today's Labs go back as far as 1878" Since Bucceleuch Avon was born in 1885, he was not the foundational dog, but a foundational dog.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.208.11 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If the breed was originally developed in the UK, why is it Labrador? --Menchi 05:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've added in a sentance to explain this - the breed was developed in England from dogs brought back from Labrador and Newfoundland. -- sannse (talk) 08:26, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps describing the Labrador as being "further developed" and first recognized in the UK would be more accurate. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 04:08, August 19 2006 (UTC)

Actually Labs had parallel development in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in both England (where dogs were imported from North America to develop fowl-hunting dogs) and in North America (where existing stock were used in fowl hunting, fishing, and ice breaking). Various lineages of dogs have been remerged with stock from the other side of the Atlantic at one time or another, so the development has been quite parallel on both sides of the Pond. It would be better if this perspective could be included in the main article, which is currently a bit misleading on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.25.239 (talk • contribs) 09:22, January 10 2007 (UTC)

I put my Origin question in the wrong category. Sorry!! Are there two different types of "Lab"? American" and "English"? What are the differences if so? Kari KY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.225.148 (talk • contribs) 22:48, October 5 2006 (UTC)

The English/American terminology can be confusing because different people--even breeders--use these terms a bit differently. In general, Labs are bred in two different "styles": a shorter, stockier, blockier-headed style (sooner bred for swimming and showing), and a taller, thinner, longer-headed style (sooner bred for field work). You will see Labs of both types both in North America and in England. The stockier variety is often called "English" and the leaner variety is often called "American"--but, again, you will see both types in both America and England. English types tend to be a bit more mellow, and American types a bit higher-energy (cf. Marley in Marley and Me), but not necessarily (it depends on the dog). Regionally, you will see different Lab tendencies as well. In the American Midwest, for instance, American Labs predominate, to the point where an English Lab may not be readily recognzied as a Lab on an everyday basis. Many breeders try to breed Labs somewhere in the middle as well, so you will see Labs that look only a bit English or a bit American. These distinctions are not codified or offical at all, however (the AKC and other kennel clubs don't recognize these differences), so the terms can be used a bit loosely. This kind of clarification might be helpful in the main article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.25.239 (talk • contribs) 09:22, January 10 2007 (UTC)

You've put quite a bit of detail in the comments above. It's interesting. Can you dig around and see what you can find citations or support for, to make sure it's well founded and not original research? If so, then it would probably improve the article to have some of these points made clearer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

There are a lot of pictures and it is not helping the presentation of the article. Should something be done about it? Thelb4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelb4 (talk • contribs) 15:34, September 8 2005 (UTC)

It's my feeling that most breeds have so much variation that it's helpful to have a variety of shots. I'd like to see every article have photos of the obvious variants of coat colors (e.g., black, chocolate, yellow) and even less-obvious ones (e.g., Golden Retrievers range from pale blonde to dark bronze red). And I think it's helpful to see dogs from the side (full body), also face on to get an idea of the personality and shape. I think it's useful to see puppies so that people can see how this lovely cute bundle of fur turns into this massive adult. AND I think it's helpful to see dogs doing activities, to give an idea of how the breed works. That said--once there are choices, I also think it's wise to start selecting for quality (e.g., do we need 12 photos of various people's chocolate labs standing up from a side view? Probably not, we could pick the best). And I also think that a gallery at the end of the article might be a good way to handle decent photos for which there isn't sufficient room in the body of the article; there are already maybe half a dozen breed articles with galleries at the end.

At this time, the only photos that I could see maybe being removed are the 2 yellow labs lounging--it's a nice photo but probably doesn't add anything--and the chocolate lab in the snow, which is really too dark to clearly see the coat or make out the details on the dog. I think that the others all add to the article, although the captions could be more useful. So--that's what I think, and that's what I've been striving for. Elf | Talk 17:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I actually made a stab at altering the page & the photos. The layout still isn't perfect--if the page is really wide, the head shots start overlapping and shoving the text out to the right too far. I could put them both back into a table as they were before my change, which would fix that problem. What do you guys think? Elf | Talk 18:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Bah! edit clash!

Anyhoo, whilst we are on the subject of doggie mug-shots. I think it would be good to have a photo or photo's to try and demonstrate the differences between the show and work strains. As a lab owner I have met meny of each kind and the differences between the two can be very dramatic! Especially since (where I am) it there has been a high demand of the "chunky lab" (basically, an over exagerated version of the show strain), and when you see it compared to an anorexic looking work bred dog, you can be confused as to whether they are even members of the same breed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekana (talk • contribs) 18:58, September 8 2005 (UTC)

I would offer my dog as a model, but he is neither work or show strain, his father was a work, his mother a show.. hee hee, I get beauty AND brains, arent I lucky! Tekana (O.o) Talk 18:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Anyhoo, to answer you question... It looks all fine and dandy to me. The only pic that i have any fault with is the "yellow labs nose can be pink or black" picture, it has been pushed to the center of the page that that bugs the pants off me! Or is my comp just set to a dodgy resolution.

• • I'd agree with having show vs work lines. I tried to arrange a photo of a working-line yellow lab at an agility trial earlier this year because it was *very* different (and amazingly fast), but our schedules never coincided.

That image "pushed to the middle" is what I was talking about above--works differently depending on how wide your browser window is set. if you make the window really narrow, it should be over to the left under the other photo...but then everything's REALLY narrow. As I said, that would be fixed by putting the 2 photos back into a table. maybe I'll try that. Elf | Talk 19:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The images in the table are acceptable to me! My eyes no longer feel like they're being raped by offensive layout. God it feels good! Tekana (O.o) Talk 19:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I stumbled upon this article. Somebody do something about it :). The photos on the left should be removed (or moved somewhere below). I don't have the time to read the article, but I believe it's fairly good. Robodesign 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I did do something about it and I don't know why the photos on the left have to be removed. If you have some other more specific suggestions about how to rearrange the photos, please make them. I already took out a couple that didn't really need to be there but I think the existing photos are useful. Elf | Talk 15:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Great overview, if anyone is interested in sharing photos of their labs go here: http://flickr.com/groups/blacklabradors/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, but I think a lot of the dogs on the artivcle is just ugly and would like 'em to be changed with this --NorwegianMarcus 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me most right now is how many of the pictures in the article ATM have been ruined by too high jpeg compression. Acdx 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to come off sounding like a snob about something a moment...these photos really aren't great representations of labs,and I think it's not just about them not all being "show dogs". The picture at the top of the page is just a really bad showing of the dog in the first place...all turned around on itself like that. I also don't understand some of the "captions" with the photos. For example the photo of a yellow lab with the caption about poor nose pigment is actually pigmented very well. As an aside, I've never in my life heard bad pigment called a "snow nose". Every breeder or enthusiast I've ever met in any breed calls an all pink nose a "dudley". Maybe it's a US/UK difference, I don't pretend to know. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 05:00, August 19 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, let's talk about the "Dudley Lab" photo? What the heck is that thing? One thing for sure, that's not a Labrador!!

I agree completely! All you have to do is look at the large white patch on the "Dudley Lab's" chest to know that this dog is a mixed breed. This photo needs to be removed. Lorih307 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) lorih307

Yes, not to mention the very odd-shaped head on that dog. That's no Lab and this picture should be deleted. Even the lead-off photo in the article (Yellow Lab) is a sorry representation of the breed standard. Tall, thin boned, narrow chest... Granted, not every dog is show-quality, but can't we do better for the very first photo that people see when they open the page? I suppose these issues highlight just how badly this article, especially the photos, needs to be cleaned up. DTC --134.163.255.13 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We (Wikipedia) only has one other photo of a Lab standing properly is this one. She does look better to me (I'm not a Lab person, but at first glance she seems more typey, if leggy). If there are no objections, I'll produce a crop of that photo (a lot of it is just background right now) and put it in the infobox. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but that dog is also very "slightly built" and just not a very good representation. I don't have editing permissions here so can't upload a photo, but here's a link to a very nice example of the breed standard. http://www.kelleygreenlabradors.com/boys/elton.htm I have no affiliation with this kennel, but do know the breeder and I would be glad to get permission to use this photo. Note the very substantial bone, broad head and short snout (stop) that are hallmarks of the breed. DTC --134.163.255.13 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Though that dog is a better representation in many respects, it looks rather overweight (all of the dogs on that site seem overweight), and to me an out-of-shape, overweight Lab is a very poor representitive of a breed bred to hunt all day (worse than a lightly-built Lab). I've done some looking around various freely licensed photo sites, but with no success (the best photo I managed to find was this, also fairly light in build). I'm a reasonably good artist (an example of my dog drawing here and I would be able to do a drawing according to the breed standards, though I wouldn't like to resort to an illustration (that and my scanner is broken). So this seems to be something of a dead-end. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing English style (more properly referred to as "Bench bred") Labs with "out-of-shape" dogs. Have a look at winners from most conformation shows, especially those Labs that have gone so far as to earn their Championship points, and you will see what I mean. As an illustration of my point, I am including a page from the Potomac LRC. This club operates under the guidelines of the LRC Inc. which sets the breed standards adopted by the AKC. Most of the 30 Labs pictured here have earned their Championship and, by your definition, all of them are "out-of-shape, overweight...", including those with a Junior Hunter title since hunting ability seems to be your litmus test. http://www.shadowbrooklabs.com/sblrcp2005.html I don't know your background and don't wish to make any assumptions here, so if you're more qualified than the trained judges who do this for a living, I will defer to your opinion of show champions as "very poor" representatives of the breed. If that's not the case, I request that you reconsider any preconceived notions of the breed standard as a service to those who seek factual information from this website. I suppose I will defer anyway as I think I have made my point.

And by the way, I do agree that some breeders of show Labs keep their dogs a bit on the heavy side. One example is Dickendall Labradors, although I mean no disrespect since Kendall Herr is a superb and conscientous breeder. However, don't underestimate the ability of these powerful, English-style Labs to outlast their frail counterparts in extreme environments like the icy waters off Newfoundland where the breed really got it's start (again, since you cite "bred to hunt all day"). As stated, I do understand that your comments have at least some merit, so I refer you to a dog named "Beechcroft's Study In Black". I think you will agree that he is light years ahead of the Black Lab suggested in your previous post in terms of conformation, few would dub him overwieght and that something like this would make a much better lead-off photo. By the way, I have no affiliation with Beechcroft Labradors either. http://www.beechcroftlabradors.com/pedigrees/Boys/Study/studyped.html

So, I hope that I have presented enough facts to convince you of my point and that you have not misunderstood my tone. At the very least, I suggest you remove the "Dudley" photo cited above. I would be very surprised if that dog has very much Lab in him at all, so that photo only serves to diminish the credibility of this webpage. DTC--134.163.255.13 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to reply, my computer broke. Now that I take a closer look at the picture you propose for the infobox I do notice a few optical illusions which make the dog look significantly overweight. The grass cuts off half the dog's leg, which at first glance makes him appear short on leg, thus making him look longer and as though his underbelly is quite distended. Additionally, the lighting of the photo doesn't flatter: it picks up highlights in certain areas on the flank and just in front of the stifle on his body that also make him look rotund (I would suggest posing the dog standing on a three-quarter angle to the sun, so the sun is hitting from the front and the side that the camera is on. Though posing directly into the sun might also work). I would probably agree to a different photo of the same dog. Preferably taken on much shorter grass or pavement (so his feet can be seen. This would probably visually take about five to ten pounds of the dog). As much as I love chocolates (my favourite Lab colour), blacks tend to photograph better because of their more reflective coat (shows any muscle tone better). A better picture of the black male "Kellygreen's Steeler" might be a good choice. The dogs on that site don't appear particularly in shape (not out-of-shape, but not in the best shape I've seen Labs), but I would probably be happy with a better photo of one of those dogs.

I will remove the dudley Lab photo fairly soon (I'm editing from a public library and need to go soon). If you scroll down to the gallery it appears to have a photo of a dudley Lab that actually looks purebred, what do you think? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the owner of the dudley lab that you guys have as the example. I have many more pictures of him, some up close, some from afar, so if you'd like to replace that picture with one of him now (he's almost a year old now), email me at jrc35@drexel.edu. He's about 80 pounds now, and is in great physical shape. Godspunk32

Would someone fix the name on the picture of a so-called "golden lab"? There is NO SUCH THING as a golden lab, unless the dog is a mixed breed and referred to in an informal sense. If that's the case, the photo does not belong in a Labrador Retriever page at all. For that matter, many of the photos don't look like pure labs anyway. The picture thing has really gotten out of hand, with scores of people posting a picture of their own faithful companion, regardless of whether or not the dog is a good representation of the breed standard.

A Golden Labrador is often confused with a Yellow Labrador I think. Maybe it needs an article? Hakluyt bean 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, whereas others may not. I also feel the same was about the Australian Cattle Dog article.

I dont think they should be removed, as every picture will contribute in some way! Perhaps, they should go into a gallery at the bottom of the page?

I would wait untill you get the blessings from people more involved in the dog project before making any changes though. Also, please sign your contributions to talk pages so others may know who you are, thanks. Tekana | Talk 16:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There should be only one of each color for conformation,and a working Lab.--70.165.71.229 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it, but I really think that it would be great to see if someone could put up a picture of a fox red labrador on here, the red is a shade of the yellow, and the color is becoming more popular, so I think it would be great to get a picture of one on here.67.163.210.82 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Silver Labrador Retrievers

I'd like to thank the editor responsible for taking down all the incorrect and biased nonsense which was previously posted on the main site under the sub-heading of Silver Labrador. Admittedly, that which is now under the sub-heading is extremely limited in scope (understatement), but at least the remaining information isn't the unsubstantiated and intentionally incorrect disinformation which was previously posted under that heading.65.73.71.26 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)silverlab 6/6/07

The information on this site regarding silver labs is not only grossly biased, it is unsubstantiated intentional disinformation. The majority of information on this site is solely the unsubstantiated opinions of blatantly biased non-silver lab breeders and owners who post anti-Silver Lab hate sites on the internet. If the contributing editors can not substantiate and document: 1) "the original silver lab kennel had Weimers", 2) gene mapping was NOT done on silver labs in the 80s, and 3) Silver Labs are a "scam" (and all like accusations and slurs made on this site), then Wikipedia should insist these inflammatory and fraudulent accusations be withdrawn. By no stretch of the imagination is this site either correct or objective on the topic of Silver Labrador Retrievers. More importantly, when editing is done to this site to correct the incorrect allegations and accusations made by the anti-silver factions, this site editor removes the corrections in accordance with her bias (see history).

If this Wikipedia site editor is incapable of editing for objectivity instead of bias, then another editor should be assigned to this site. If this editor is so delusional she believes she is being objective on the topic of silver labs, then the topic of Silver Labs should be submitted for arbitration to Wikipedia's Arbitration Board.65.73.71.17 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)silverlab 5/31/07

I suppose you believe I am the only person reverting your disruptive edits. That is not the case. It is true that the section on "silver" labradors was overly zealous, but I had no doing in it. To be completely honest, I could care less if people want to own a silver-colored dog that looks like a labrador. However, trying to worm around the fact that they are outside of the breed standard, and furthermore convince people that there is some sort of scientific proof when there is none is morally wrong. Your edits got you banned and listed on WP:COI/N in March, and your continued vandalism, coupled with threatening me via e-mail got you listed on WP:ANI. Now, anonymous editors are barred from editing in an attempt to end your disruption. Please stop. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone has "edited" the section regarding silver labradors to make the color aberration appear to be anything other than a ~colorful~ marketing gimmick (pun intended). Silver lab enthusiasts, I would urge you to use sources that do not originate from "silver" lab breeders or from wishful thinking about a purchase that the AKC and the LRC refuses to recognize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.231.66 (talk • contribs) 04:02, December 22 2006 (UTC)

The information currently displayed in this article about the silver labrador is factually inaccurate. The article has been semi-protected and I am currently unable to repair it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs) 14:36, January 6 2007 (UTC) This post was replaced after having been removed at 01:40, January 7, 2007 (UTC) by 24.115.231.66 (talk · contribs).

Some silver Labrador enthusiasts continue to vandalize the page and include un-cited and non-scientific statements as fact. There is currently no test to prove or disprove that a "silver" Labrador is a pure bred Labrador. There is no proof or evidence that the dilute "silver" gene in "silver" labs did or did not come from Wiemaraners. It is true, however, that the LRC does not condone, promote, or recognize silver as a legitimate color for the Labrador retriever. It is also true that to date no "silver" Labrador has ever appeared outside of the United States by breeding two native chocolates together. It is also a fact that the original kennel where "silver" Labradors first appeared also bread Weimaraners. It is also a fact that "silver" Labrador breeders charge upwards of 2-5 times as much for one of these dogs and that their motives behind their proof appear to be financially motivated. A true Labrador enthusiast doesn't care about money.

It is also true that of the three people I know who have "silver" Labradors, all of them claim the dogs act more like Weimaraners than labs. It is also true that one of them calls her dog a Weim, despite the $2000 she paid to register him as a "silver" Labrador.

So to the three or four people who keep vandalizing this page with their propaganda--please follow Wikipedia guidelines, cite your references, and if you love the breed... for God's sake, stop making false claims. This is a dictionary, not a fairytale where you can make your wishes about bogus “scientific evidence” come true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.231.66 (talk • contribs) 22:02, January 5 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "bogus “scientific evidence”, can anyone ANYWHERE come up with one shred of "scientific evidence" proving Silver Labs are NOT pure bred Labrador Retrievers?

Speaking of false "fairytales", I challenge the "fact" that to date no silvers have appeared outside the US; and I would like proof of that statement. I challenge the "fact" the original kennel in the US kept Weimaraners; if that is true, please state the name of the kennel. I know of dozens of silver lab owners, and NONE of them think their dogs act like Weimars.

The info about silver labs currently on your site(s) is dead wrong and certainly not neutral. I've corrected it numerous times over the last few months and it keeps getting redone, and redone with extreme bias. If the anti-silver experts who are responsible for these intentional distortions are so set on producing facts, I (as well as about a million other Lab owners) would like to read the name of this phantom "US-based kennel where "silver" Labradors initially were reported kept Weimaraners in the kennel"; or see one FACT which proves silver labs are NOT pure bred Labradors. By no stretch of the imagination would AKC have registered silver labs as "pure bred Labrador Retrievers" unless they were positive all the lineage (which they personally inspected all the way back to black) was "pure bred Labrador Retriever". All I read on this "fact sheet" is hearsay and jealousy. What you are posting is wrong and you are doing a disservice to legitimate Labrador owners and breeders of silver labs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.71.45 (talk • contribs) 05:44, February 16, 2007 (UTC)

The article does not state that so-called "silver" labs do not appear outside the US, it is noting that nobody outside the US has claimed one of their silver-coloureds has come from two pure-bred chocolate-coloureds, which is true. Nor does the article say that silvers act any differently (the person commenting above you did, but that is personal opinion). There is nothing wrong with accidental breedings that produces the color, but people who intentionally breed the colour, try to register them, and then charge extra money for them are doing a disservice to people and the breed in general. The color is not supported by any reputable breed organization, nor has any silver been "genetically proven" to be purebred, which some people have actually tried to claim. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 21:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no one can substantiate the "fact" that the original kennel where silvers were first reported in the US kept Wiemers. I'll attribute that as another anti-silver "fairytale". Or should I say fairy-tail?

Do you really expect anyone to believe AKC would register silver labs as AKC registered Labrador Retrievers if AKC was not dead positive they were pure bred? Particularly after AKC spent the time and money to send out field investigators (twice) to inspect all the known ancestors of silver labs; and those AKC investigators went all the way back to the black Lab ancestors of silver labs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.71.118 (talk • contribs) 05:38, February 19, 2007 (UTC)

The American Kennel Club is a registry. If you say your dog's parents are pure-bred, they're not going to dispute it unless you try to show- even if the puppies have more than one father and/or have traits against the breed standards (such as a curved tail or silver coloring). It is true that you are capable of registering the dogs under the AKC. But as you do so, you are going against the breed standard, and possibly supporting in-breeding (many people don't get their labs of any color from the expensive breeders you can find on the internet- as such I worry about the puppies advertised in my local newspaper). If you were to ever have hopes of showing your dog, you would be immediately disqualified.

Silver Labs can, and do, enter shows. Because Silver Labs carry AKC registration — they are eligible for an AKC sanctioned show. However, once entered, the objectivity of the judging will undoubtedly be slanted. Then again, the bias of show judges is legendary, and show judges displayed that same bias against Choc Labs for decades. I suggest you go directly to AKC for clarification of your misconception(s).silverlab65.73.71.53 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1987, the AKC did investigate some "silver" coloured puppies, but although they agreed they were pure-bred, they concluded that these puppies were not silver- they were chocolate. It is interesting that the people claiming silver is a genuine color, while demanding proof, show no proof beyond "I say so" themselves. Why, I ask, would the Labrador Retriever Club's site sport this page? Why would the AKC's site not list silver under their labrador description here? Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 14:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again the anti-silver faction thinks either AKC or the silver breeders need to prove silvers are purebred, when only the anti-silver last ditch hold-outs are claiming silvers are not pure bred Labs. If you antis think you can set aside your ignorance and anti-silver bias long enough to attempt an understanding of genetics, try deciphering (http://www.biomedcentral.com/home). That research gives a very good genetic analysis of genetic color coat migration in K-9s. Silver Labs are pure bred labs, and the only ones claiming otherwise are a small group of elitists who want to dictate THEIR ignorance and bias to the majority of Lab owners and breeders.silverlab65.73.71.53 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are so set on trying to scam people, feel free to do so on your own sites. However, Wikipedia is not going to help you. Sorry. Again, I suggest you read WP:COI. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll interpret your last statement as a concession that you are either incapable of understanding the genetics of what produces a silver coat in pure bred Silver Labrador Retrievers ((http://www.biomedcentral.com/home); or you are unwilling to admit that you are incorrect, and simply trying to protect your financial investment by slandering legitimate Silver Labrador breeders. Silver lab 65.73.71.77 23:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof that Silver Labs are unpure, and I have owned over 12 in my life, alongside of yellows, blacks & chocolates. Our Kennel IS proof they are IDENTICAL in behavior. So anti-silver breeders, give it up. Your argumnt ended in the late 90s and is old news. Silver labs are owned all over the world as many kennels have sold to places outside the U.S. for over a DECADE. Our kennels is proof of this. I'm not here to promote our kennel, I'm here to say that there is no debate about the silver being unpure. All your links you keep linking to are sites that YOU create that have NO basis. So you are jeopardizing Wikipedia's credibility by placing misleading & false information up about silver labs--there are over 50 kennels in the US alone that sell these! And they've existed for decades! Predjudice towards dog coat colors?! Come on, wake up. That soundsl like a caveman's belief. next thing you know you'll be telling me certain labs from certain regions are unpure because of their environment. Where does it end?

Silver Lab breeders: You know you're being deceitful, and if you honestly cared for the Labrador breed you would not continue to dupe people with the notion of the silver Labrador. You are the only breeders that breed for color and color alone. If these dogs hold merit, why don't you push to make a new breed--call these dogs the California Retriever or something. Everyone knows they're Weimeraners.... I just hope you are unsuccessful in destroying the breed before science can evolve to the point where this fact can be detected.

Cleanup tag

The appearance and variations sections are quite lengthy and not well focussed. Hopefully tagging the article as "cleanup" will address these and gain review of the rest of the text in general. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is very appearance heavy. This is natural as the appearance of any particular breed is the characteristic that most people (and therefore most editors) are familar with. It should be edited to include an in depth explanation, but need not touch on every possible aspect of appearance. Additionally, I believe that more should be written about the working dog characteristics of the breed (see below)--Counsel 01:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, there is inconsistent use of American/British spellings of words, in particular "color/colour". Antisora 15:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible overlap in History section - to fix

In the history section it states:

• "It is thought to have descended from the St. John's Water Dog (no longer in existence), a crossbreed of native water dogs and the Newfoundland to which the Labrador is closely related, by early settlers in the mid to late 15th century."

and also

• "The original forebearers of the St. John's have variously been suggested to be crossbreeds of the black St. Hubert's hound from France, working water dogs from Portugal, old European pointer breeds and dogs belonging to the indiginous peoples of the area."

Would these sentences be better if combined somehow? Any volunteers? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Crossbreeds?

• If no one objects,I am going to get rid of the 'common lab crossbreeds' thing.This article is about labs,not those labradoodle things.--70.165.71.229 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Objection - articles are expected to indicate (briefly) relevant related topics. notable crossbreeds are probably useful to some readers. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Variants need reworking?

We have 3 sections now (I just added one I'm afraid!) covering field v. show, English v. American, and "Physical lines and variants".

This is daft. We need to merge or handle this aspect better.

Any proposals anyone? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism block

An editor has been blocked using range blocks of a week at a time, due to persistent article and talk page vandalism.

See AN/I entries dates: 03:05, 4 February 2007 (FT2) and 03:13, 4 February 2007 (Pilotguy). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Update

I received the following from user:Silverlabrador by email:

The info about silver labs currently on your site(s) is dead wrong and certainly not neutral. I've corrected it numerous times over the past few months and it keeps getting redone, and redone with extreme bias. If these anti-silver experts who are responsible for these intentional distortions (and flat out lies) are so set on producing facts, I (as well as about a million other Lab owners) would like to read the name of this phantom "US-based kennel where "silver" Labradors initially were reported kept Weimaraners in the kennel"; or see one FACT which proves silver labs are NOT pure bred Labradors. By no stretch of the imagination would AKC have registered silver labs as "pure bred Labrador Retrievers" unless AKC was dead positive all the lineage (which they personally inspected all the way back to black) was "pure bred Labrador Retriever" (AKC has stated this on the record). All I read on this "fact sheet" is hearsay and jealousy by breeders who can not sell their Labs. What you are posting is wrong and you are doing a disservice to legitimate Labrador owner and breeders of silver labs Please refer to website silverlabradorinfo.com for more information about silver labs. silverlabrador

My response so far is as follows:

Hi, and thanks for the email. It would certainly have been helpful to discuss and make points on Wikipedia. Instead you edited others words to say things that they didn't say, both on the article and on the talk page. That is Vandalism, and for that your account has been blocked. I am happy to discuss the isues of silver labradors with you by email, though. If there is legitimate information then that's important. But your history (as far as I have seen it) is someone who fabricates quotes and changes others quoted words to suit yourself. So it will be others words I trust, not just your own (unsupported) claims. Let's take your points one at a time: The kennel reported -- yes, agreed. I would like to see some background on that too. I would like a reference to the AKC position. I've seen the statement on dogbreeedinfo.com, it seems strange to me that AKC would have a position specifically on silver labs and yet that position is not on their own website. Is there a more authoritative source for their view? I have also read the werb site you linked to -- thank you. Again, some questions: "Until 1987, AKC issued registration papers which listed Silver as a Lab's registered color on both AKC registration certificates and AKC color charts" - is there an AKC or other verifiable authoritative source for this statement? "Literature on Labradors mentions the occasional gray puppy since people first began writing about Labs" - can I have a few sources to back this statement up? And without disrespect, as you have faked what sources have said before, I would like checkable sources not just claims. "DNA testing and mapping of CCK's Silver Labs was done during the close of the Twentieth Century" - what exactly was "checked"? Who checked it? Where is their report? These are questions I would like to check for myself, again from authoritative versions. As far as I'm aware, there is no DNA test that can tell if a dog is of this or that breed, or has a "crossbreed" in its ancestry. "Fortunately, kennel clubs around the world (who do not have the political pressure from mercenary American breeders of "normal" color Labs) already accept Silver Labs without all the political fuss and pressure being applied to AKC..." - Since AKC does not consider silver a different color from chocolate, it would help to know which major kennel clubs register silvers as silver. Thanks for the help, these are my initial questions.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

All those questions were answered in detail. Why have you failed to post the answers? Silver lab

My question still stands- apparently you did not see it or chose to ignore it. If the AKC supports the silver color, why would the Labrador Retriever Club's site sport this page, and why doesn't the main AKC site list silver under their labrador description here? Furthermore, I suggest a look at Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest here- not just for the person above me, but for everyone who hasn't already done so. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Labrador Retriever Club is exactly what its name implies, i.e., a CLUB; and that "club" is a group of elitist which represents less than .1% of Labrador Retriever owners and breeders throughout the world. Yet the LRC feels they, and they alone, should be able to impose their self-grandizing "standards" (which are based solely on their financial involvement) on the remaining 99.9% of Labrador Retriever owners and breeders throughout the world. In the over all context of the Labrador Retriever community (and a great pun), this is a prime example of the tail trying to wag the dog.

The AKC originally issued AKC registrations listing "silver" as a recognized color for the Labrador Retriever (I have several silver color certifications issued by AKC). In the late 80s, the AKC relented to pressure from special interest breeders of non-silver Labs (read that as breeders with huge financial interests such as the LRC), and decided to call silver labs chocolate labs. By any stretch of the imagination, this is an incredible example of denial. I am personally certain the AKC will eventually have to revert to their earlier acceptance of silver as a common color of choice for AKC registered Labrador Retrievers; they had to do it for chocolate, and they will have to do it for silver. silverlab65.73.71.89 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

Added some new pictures of Labrador Retrievers ... please feel free to add more. Kumarrrr 12:53, 18 February 2007 (GMT)

Also added a picture of some dogs I was training this winter. ForcedInduction 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

References

The references section for this article needs serious clean-up; mostly for consistency between how the entries look, and perhaps also for relevancy concerning what they support. Also, many of the sources appear several times.

Furthermore, I am a bit concerned by the number of links to sites for private breeders. Most breeders of any dog will, by default, know quite a bit about their breed, but the truth is their websites just might not make the greatest of sources here. In particular is one called "Endless Mountain" that is continuously added into the article, which among things, claims that opposite-sex pairings of labs work "100%" of the time, and that "show-bred" labs are more responsive in the field. Considering the "American" lines are indeed bred for working, and that the dogs are chosen out for their hunting and trial responsiveness, this latter claim almost borders on the bizarre. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Partly, that's why some cites are multiple-sourced; just one site saying something isn't really evidence of much. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Said source is the only one that claims that show-bred dogs are more responsive in the field. Reading through the site from "labbies.com," I think it makes a better argument for the two lines' temperaments, so I have put that one there too instead. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Golden Labrador

May often be confused with a yellow labrador; turns out it's a cross between a golden retriever & labrador retriever. Maybe some info could be filtered in or an article created. I'd do it myself, but, tho I grew up with a golden labrador (Hamish, v good-natured), these days I'm more of a cat person... Cheers! Hakluyt bean 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization: Lab/lab

There doesn't appear to be a consistent approach to capitalization of the word "lab" when used in mid-sentence. I'm not sure which is correct, I just see it both ways in the same article. Hopefully someone knows how it should be and can correct it so it is consistent throughout the article.

Mungk 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It should always be capitalized (when used to refer to the Labrador Retriever). I'll go through the article and correct it now. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It should absolutely be capitalized. I'm not at all happy with the term. It is a slang term language-wise and a colloquilism amongst Labrador owners and enthusiasts. As such, it should not be used in an encylopedia as a slang term for reasons of good linguistic presentation and it unsuitable for non-enthusiasts. TinyMark 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Heat Period Cycle

How long is the interval of each heat period of an average female labrador? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.1.53.38 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Famous Labradors

Isn't Comet (from Full house) actually a Golden retriever, not a labrador? 147.76.180.135 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No White Allowed

"The coat of the black Labrador is solid black, with no white markings allowed except for a small spot on the chest." This, of course, makes it sound like labs are born in a factory, with managers determining whether the product meets specifications or not before putting them on store shelves. Celedor15 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's referring to the breed standard. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it should say that. Celedor15 12:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have removed the "Silver Labs" sub-section from this article's external links, because all of these pages are currently linked from the references section. WP:EL suggests that sites that have been used as references should be linked in a references section, not an external links section. --Muchness 11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Silver labs

Let's get some references that are reliable and solid, AKC sites, research in peer-reviewed journals on silver labrador retrievers or don't include the information, please. How is this website a reliable source, for example?[1] What are the qualifications of the web site author that show he/she is an authority? I removed the one bad link, and the sentence it referenced--please find a live link or another stable and reliable reference, not just someone's website commentary, before reinserting it, and verify all the links, thanks. KP Botany 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the Weim/Lab (aka Silver Lab) mutt nuts are including false information and make-believe scientific studies that cannot be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.230.115 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Use as service dogs

Notable for the breed, needs a section. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected ...

... as a result of repeated posting of personal attacks by IP-hopping anon editor. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to understand what is wrong with this. As a result, this page may not be edited by anonymous editors or new accounts for a brief period. - Alison ☺ 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

COULD I...

I have a couple of pictures of a full-blooded white and full-blooded yellow labs. Is there anyway I could edit the LAB page and put these pics up? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbb22 (talk • contribs)

I'd say the article already has enough pictures right now and adding more could lead to some crowding. However, you are welcome to upload your photos to the Wikimedia Commons where they may be used in all Wikimedia projects in all languages. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 13:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has a good assortment of pictures, already, although it is rather heavier on the lighter colored labs, already, also. Still, if you do upload your pictures to commons, and put a good description with them, and they're better pictures than ones already in the article, an editor may decide to change up one of the pictures in here for one of yours. KP Botany 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Crossovers edit request

I want to add the cross-breed of Beagles and Labs to the page - Beagladors. I have one and have recently encountered several, it is believable that they are an up and coming breed that will be very popular in coming years. I think that they ought to be added to the cross over section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollybugs (talk • contribs) 06:17, July 7, 2007

Beagladors, along with cockapoos and any other number of ridiculous types of "designer dogs" are not breeds. They are mutts. Write an article about them standing up to Wikipedia's conditions of notability if you wish, but I don't really see any purpose making mention of them in this particular article. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be insulting, labradors were long ago mutts. Breeds are simply dogs with desired characteristics bred for a long time, and accepted as breeds by self-designated organizations. One day beagladors may be breeds. In the meantime, this article is about Labrador Retrievers, not about Beagladors. You may write an article about Beagladors, if you find enough acceptable sources, and if the concept is notable. An appropriate link within this article might also be called for. If you need any help about what constitutes a reliable source please post on my talk page. Have fun researching. KP Botany 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it could be mentioned under the Labrador Crossbreeds section, couldn't it? (Unless the crossbreed section isn't supposed to be in the article?) --Jude. 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mollybugs, if you want to add Beagladors, be sure that first you have at least one reliable source discussing beaglodors in the context of labradors. --SmokeyJoe 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"I have one and have recently encountered several, it is believable that they are an up and coming breed that will be very popular in coming years" -- see WP:CRYSTAL. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should leave out all the silly portmanteau cross-breeds, A "beaglador" is not a breed. Exception might be labradoodle which was originally bred for a specific purpose - hypoallergenic guide dogs. Although the fashion for portmanteau dogs has interferred with that original purpose.

Quotes with references?

Is it standard to have quotes with the footnoted reference? I've never seen that done before, and it seems a bit odd to me, as most are linked to a webpage where the quoted content can be found anyway. --Jude. 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it done before, but not in a while... its purpose is to avoid the reader having to read a long piece to find the information being referenced (without also resorting to often confusing page/paragraph #'s). The quote about color appears to be a throwback- eight months ago it was just the quote, and the AKC's site was introduced at some point between there and here. The other quotes would seem to be following its example, although as far as I can tell they've always included the links. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A quotation (a bit like any cited fact) may have a bit more information needed than flows into the article itself. In such cases it's better to use footnotes which do not distract from the main article. For example if the article body contained the "cite web" template, and date of KC rules referenced, and date of checking of web page, or the fuller context, it would be distracting rather than helpful to the reader. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of famous labradors

(Removed from RFC, list created, seems fairly non controversial).

As both the UK and US's most popular dog breed, and also one of the most popular service dog breeds, there are a fair number of genuinely notable and famous labradors listed in the article.

I've just added "Lucky and Flo", twin Black labs who were the first dogs to perform a counterfeit DVD raid and first dogs to be awarded Malaysia's "outstanding service award", who were widely reported in the media. There are a lot already and will be more. This causes an undue weight problem in that the article is becoming (or will probably become) somewhat unbalanced towards this growing list.

There are already a fair number of notable entries in the list, enough to justify a "list of" article. Would anyone have an objection to (or comments on) moving these to a more suitable article List of famous Labradors? Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Update - moved. The new article looks good. Does the section as brevified here look okay? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article is well organized, and overall in very good shape. There's a couple of major gaps in referencing that really need to be taken care of prior to GA status; notably:

• The 'citation needed' tag in the 'inherited disorders' section.
• The average weight provided in the 'overview' needs a source (specific numbers).
• 'Show standards' information (if they're standards for a show, it should be easy to find the standards published with the AKC or other organization).
• The text under 'Temperament and activities' is scarcely referenced.
• 'Obesity' subsection.

The reference formatting should be fixed. Inline citations should not just include a link, but also full citation information; author (if applicable), title, where it was published, date of publication, date of retrieval (if it's available as a web link). It's also unnecessary to actually include the text of the reference in quotes in each listing; let people click on the links and just tell us where you got it from. For more information on reference formatting, go to WP:CITE.

The sentence "Because of this it is good practice that Labradors are microchipped," is suggesting doing something that some owners might consider controversial, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.

The images all look good. The image under 'color' is very small, and hard to see. It could be increased in size a bit. The image tag of President Clinton & Buddy is missing the ARC identifier in the National Archives.

The article needs a good copyedit, to fix a couple of minor grammatical errors in the language; particularly in the earlier parts of the article.

Other than these minor issues, the article looks great! I'll put this on hold at WP:GAC until these issues are fixed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixing these. Comments to date:

1. Dysplasia affects larger dogs more, is now cited.
2. Weight now fixed and cited.
3. Show standards updated, rechecked, and cited.
4. Unfamiliar with NARA or ARC ID's, hence can't find original in the archives. Help needed.
5. Specific copyedit input needed "general copyedit" isn't specific enough.
6. Disagree that microchipping is evidenced as controversial, or at least in this breed. It seems widely supported by dog associations as a way to ensure dogs are not lost, impounded and killed but can be reunited with their owners. There is no evidence of a controversy at the main Microchip implant (animal) article, indeed they are legally required in some locations. Multiple citing, and wording has also been improved to address potential NPOV issues.
7. Two sections sighnificantly changed: 1/ History has been updated, more solid but unsure if it's best structured. Re-review of section requested. Also 2/ new section, "popularity".
8. Cites have text included specifically since the main text is via precis in many cases, hence to allow reader to see actual words used. If it's not actively in serious contravention of MOS, can it stand? Thanks.

Obseity had cited removed - to fix. Likewise temperament. Cite templates also to be added. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, is in great shape. A few little things remain prior to GA, but overall, a big improvement. I made a few minor changes to the grammar and reference formatting. With regard to the quotes within references, while there's nothing in wikipedia's manual of style expressly forbidding it, it's generally a bit unorthodox and unnecessary to do so, in the wiki as well as in print. Generally, it's only necessary to include the information required to find the article that you are citing information from -- beyond that, there's these large buildings in many cities called "libraries", where people can go to actually read material and references. Including a link to the reference makes the process of physically going to the library often unnecessary, so that's good. Plus, if a link is available, just click on the link to read the full info, not just a quote -- including the quote also tends to increase the page size on the wiki article for downloading, too.

The history section looks good. The part about labradors being mostly found in cities like Moscow & Riga seems to be somewhat Russia-centric, and somewhat contradicts later data indicating that the UK & US have the largest labrador registrations; I can't imagine that large a shift in the labrador population between 1980 & the present day? I am also not sure of the validity of the statement regarding Tatiana Dimitriu? Who is she? Is she an expert on labradors? Her name is not mentioned in the corresponding reference #13, so where did this come from?

The other major issue is the new 'popularity and numbers' section, which to me, seems to be listing and stating some rather trivial and subjective information, mainly in a list form. So it looks kind of like a trivia section in disguise. While the popularity is cited, it seems like very trivial and subjective information. Specifically, the source for 'most popular dog in the world' only goes to a very sketchy source on dogbreedz.com (while I'm not challenging dogbreedz.com, it is not clear how that site came across this specific information -- was it their survey? someone else's? did they look at and compare kennel registries?), dating back to 1991. However, the demographics information and table is interesting and notable. I wonder if the section could be improved by (a) rewriting the bulleted list as prose; (b) changing the title of the section to 'demographics'; or possibly (c) moving the whole section to near the end of the article, as it doesn't seem quite as important as some of the sections that follow it?

These are the only real major issues that remain. Other than that, the article is very close to GA,... Cheers! Dr. Cash 06:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good now, and meets the GA criteria. The 'demography' section still isn't perfect, but I think it's better if we keep the section simply named 'demography' instead of naming it 'popularity and demography' (adding the popularity name in there focuses too much on a more subject criteria here). Cheers! Dr. Cash 17:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cites

First, a much thanks to the editors who seem to have picked up the baton on this and gone cite-fixing! Much, much valued! Nice work!

I'm a little concerned some valuable information is being removed though. I'd like to double check that aspect while its current, if possible.

A lot of the cites removed fall into 2 categories, cites that included relevant text quotes, and multiple-cites reduced to one cite.

1. A lot of the information on Labradors, not surprisingly, comes from breeder websites. To make the statement that something is generally held, it's useful to show multiple independent sources state it, not just one.
2. And in some cases, where summarizing is involved, it's useful to give the exact text, for reference. I'm not aware of a reason not to do that. Is it against MOS somewhere? For me, it seems sensible that if one's saying "website X says Y", one might actually add to the footnote what exactly that website is saying, in its own words. Does MOS say one should not do that?

Some examples on specific edits:

1. [2]

   • One website saying they are considered the founders of the breed is not really much evidence for a strong claim. Multiple cites are useful. A second website also refers to the named dog as "the foundation dog". That's been removed.
   • Same edit - the fact that a website's information is also provided in a book, is valuable to an interested reader, especially if that web page vanishes. It's been removed.

2. [3]

   • There were 2 references for the russian section. The 2nd was removed and the cite name "tatiana" (which is used elsewhere) then used for the 1st reference, which doesn't contain the cited information.

3. [4] - critical information for people researching the breed is removed.

   • For example, "puppyish energy" is one thing, but many labs actively get misnamed as "hyperactive" and considered flawed through that mistake. That's useful information (that the "puppyish energy" can be that extreme). It's been removed.
   • Likewise leash training is mentioned by many sources as important for the breed to prevent pulling, since they are very strong, also removed.
   • The double cite on alarm barking and guarding is reduced to one cite.
   • The characteristic descriptions of the famous (and voraciously non-discriminatory) lab appetite, which are ubiquitous to the breed and highly notable, have all been removed.
   • The multiple cites of lab initiative are also removed from "assistance dogs".

4. [5]

   • The cite on percentage of guide dogs that are labs is removed leaving this uncited.

The cite fixing is great and appreciated, it's nicely done. But can we discuss issues like the above to clarify some form of view on it? Thanks!

(And I'd be fine RFCing it, if we need more input.)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as using quotes in cites, I don't think it's against the MOS, but I think it looks messy. Also, if the same website is used more than once, it's impractical to put a quote in, because then the <ref name = "X"> thing can't be used.

• I removed one of the cites because the site [6] shows up as " Dog Breed Advice: We're sorry but the page you requested could not be found, Error 404". But I've returned the hyperactivity sentence.
• In the Russian section, I was under the (mistaken) impression that the two russian cites were the same. But I was wondering, who is Tatiana Dimitriu? Is she an expert on the history of Russian labradors? Because the way her name is used in the article implies that she is.
• I removed the [7] ref, because the website is 50% advertisements, but the original sentance, "Because of their enthusiasm, leash-training early on is suggested to prevent pulling when full-grown", remains.
• The sentence about eating "anything that isn't nailed down" I removed because the source was a web forum discussing Labradors, which is not an acceptable cite. I removed the [8] cite because the site doesn't even have the author's full name, and it isn't an authoritative source. The "stomach on legs" quote can be returned if you like, though, since it's in the BBC article.
• In the assistance dogs section, ref 49 was a blank cite, so I removed it. THis cite [9] apparently doesn't exist any more. This, [10] cited for "high work ethic", didn't actually say that they have a high work ethic. The ref for the percentages has been replaced.--Jude. 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiya,

• I'd agree quoting the actual text looks a bit messy. Some you took out I'd agree with. There might be a couple where I'd think better put them back in, but you're probably right, in many cases its not necessary.
• I don't know who "Tatiana" is. The author of that article on that website is really all that's known. You're right, naming her by name suggests expertize she may not have.
• Agreed - sites that advertize are not preferred sources. I'll try to find one thats not that way to replace it.
• The cite about appetite I'm not sure I agree on. One forum is not a reliable source. But showing that the same expression comes up consistently, on many sources, ... thoughts?

Meantime to reiterate - thanks a million for the help on this. The last 10% of getting it to GA quality is good to have help on :) Look forward to seeing if we can polish up the last few issues on this article.

One question, can you review carefully the stats in the second half of the "popularity" section? Do the sources seem reliable and well-represented to you? The issue here is "registrations" vs. "living individuals" and so on. A second set of eyeballs to double-check would be valued. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as the cite about appetite, a google search with Labrador + "stomach on legs" only came up with six hits. It doesn't seem like a very common expression to me... but the fact that they tend to have an enormous appetite is well known. So something like "Labradors are well known for their appetite" would be fine, but that specific quote is questionable.

The stats in the popularity section seem pretty low to me. AKC [11] lists 123,760 labs in 2006, but I don't know if they mean living individuals or what. Of course, there are a lot of unregistered Labradors out there, so that might even be low. Hey, and you're welcome for the help. Only 45 refs left to format! Cheers, Jude. 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)