Talk:New Guinea singing dog/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Adding Info

A published article to help Inugami. The explorer who captured the first pair of NGSD's but failed to prepare a contained envoronment was Ellis Troughton. http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-magazines/dogworld/dog-world-new-guinea-singing-dog.aspx Tomcue2 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense but Throughton isn't mentioned in the article. Furthermore I would be very reserved to use that article. That bloomy language makes me question the objectivity. Ina ddition the last Singer I met was the direct opposite of aloof and reserved he acted like many other dogs who make contact and don't bother with you afterwards.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Inugami, We agree. Tomcue needs to go back to a more original source. If NGSD are well socialized they will be friendly to most people. Their natural instinct is to be "aloof" and check out a potential danger or threat. Aloofness is a defense mechanism that has helped them survive all these thousands of years. Additionally we have observed NGSD who, from birth to death, never did trust certain people. We have also observed that aloofness can be a learned response passed from mother to puppy. We have observed these "exception behaviors" numerous times over the years and in fact still do observe them every day when we care for our Singers yet even with all these thousands of contacts we have not been able to ascertain exactly why a NGSD will be friendly to one person but not to another even when the person being shunned is consistently friendly towards the Singer. The shunning is due to lack of trust in that the Singer does not trust the human, but we can't figure out all the factors that trigger and/or perpetuate the shunning. There are times when a Singer is "spooked" for no apparent reason. We have no choice but to believe that Singers are better equipped to analyze their surrounds than are humans. When combined, their acute senses and intelligence place them far above humans. The volume of input from their senses sometimes overpowers them and they become "totally anxious". When this happens they retreat from the situation in order to evaluate everything as well as to "calm down". The only Singer you will ever see "out-of-control" is one that is cornered with no escape. If a person wishes to even touch, let alone hand capture a cornered Singer that person must have the ability to establish significant trust between himself and the Singer prior to "reaching out". My wife and I have had thousands of encounters with Singing Dogs and the only times one of us has ever been bitten was when I made the stupid mistake of picking up a Singer who'd been injured by another canine. 0sm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) There is no time limit regarding how long an animal will be aloof. Aloofness is totally dependent upon the level of trust established between the animal and the human. A Singer may shun a person for only a split second or it might shun you til hell freezes over. Also and this is very important, trust must be reestablished each time a human encounters a Singers. The aloof characteristic is a very strong trait. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

osm20 I did not post the information for Inugami to reference it. I just wanted him to understand why the taxon was hallstomi (Sir Edward Hallstrom) yet Ellis Troughton was given credit for the first NGSD capture. It has to confuse folks to read about Hallstrom bringing the first pair to Australia but the see that Troughton was credited. Alice Bixler (who wrote that article) obtained her information from the book "A Celebration of Rare Breeds" Tomcue2 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

tomcue. Sorry, I misunderstood your intentions. I am aware of Alice Bixler as well as the rare breeds book. I read it circa 21 years ago. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomcue. According to my Info it was Hallstrom how gave the order to get the first pair and Troughton named them after Hallstrom. If you have other infos I need a source.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Inugami - That is about how I have it but in this order. You can reference the Aussie biography of the two online. Hallstrom funded both expeditions (Troughton's capture and his own). The 2nd expedition was Hallsrom's and Troughton was then the person to study and declare the NGSD as it's own species. Thus "hallstromi" was the taxon Troughton gave them. Troughton was still given credit for discovering them via the first capture even though they never made it to Taronga. Tomcue2 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

According to "An updated description of the New Guinea Singing Dog, the first pair made it to Taronga. So again, what is your source? Without a source it doesn't matter whether your information is correct, because then there is no proof.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A better way to show vocalizations

All, I have been having a running conversation with TomCue on the best way to provide vocalizations for the article. It is a great idea that should have been long ago. He believes a single link to his site is the best way. I disagree, it is neither clean or neutral. We have not come to a resolution. A better option is to have no links at all from any site, but rather keep everything within wiki and link one or more midi files from the Commons area of Wiki. Let's have a constructive dialog.Mrhorseracer (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I have no experience with sound-files in commons but one thing I know, they need to come from a source, so where do we get them from?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest that I convert our sound-files to the proper format or if TomCue has one already, we use his.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean with "our sound-files"?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our sound-files means any one in the Singer Community--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone owns a good such sound file, or is aware of one which is public domain or which we can get permission to use from the copyright holder, the best thing would be to upload a file directly into the article and place it alongside the text describing the sounds. That way, the user can hear it without having to navigate away from the page or otherwise interrupt the flow of their reading. Chrisrus (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus is right - this is where we should be going--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer to quartl

Hi quartl, It's great to see yet another person participating. Please allow me to address your questions. Let me preface my reply by simply saying first of all that there are two distinct Singer populations. We are not overly concerned about either population being hybridized. For the most part breeders and owners of the captive population have been careful to preserve their purity. We believe there are several reasons for this: #1 There are so few of them that there have only been a few people involved so hence less chances of error, #2 The number of breedings has been limited, #3 Most Singers are kept in "Singer proof" enclosures whether it be a zoo, house, pen or building so there are relatively few escapes and relatively few accidental breedings. #4 Most Singer owners realize that they have an animal that is very unique in the world(there is no other animal physically equipped to "Sing" like a NGSD) and historically, owners have wanted to preserve these unique characteristic. Hybridization would definately alter characteristics. We always have to remember that Mother Nature has been "fine tuning" Singing Dogs for thousands of years and Man's contribution so far has been minimal. The idea that NGSD can be improved by hybridization is ludicrous. No right minded Singer breeder would intentionally hybridize a Singing Dog. As to hybridization in the wild, there is no verified information available, but what we theorize is that due to NGSDs personality traits of shying away from humans we feel that there are probably some purebreds still tucked away in the remote highland regions of NG. There have been a few sightings of canines suspected to be NGSD and there have been a few reports of hearing dogs Sing. There are natives still alive who would be able to identify probable NGSd simply by hearing their vocalizations. Recall that humans and NGSD have lived side by side in NG for thousands of years. Singers have existed as commensal animals meaning that they have been there on the outshirts of civilization but have not depended on man to make a living. Singers are so intelligent that any hunting attempts from villagers would drive them away. A Singer's response to aggression by humans would be to leave the area as soon as possible. Therefore, aggressive villagers who hunted Singers for food have actually helped preserve Singers by driving them away. On the other hand, villages that befriended Singers by being kind to them actually contributed to their demise by offering them a safe haven inhabited by European Domestic Dogs that have interbred with the Wild NGSD and created Singer Hybrids aka Village Dogs. The Singer world now has the DNA studies conducted by Dr Alan Wilton etal, and we know there is at last is a definitive way to ascertain NGSD purity. Those of us who have been closely associated with Singing Dogs for a number of years have long awaited this landmark study and are extremely pleased that it took place and that the results were positive. Our grave concern with NGSD lies in inbreeding. There exists a sufficient number of captive Singers to preserve the subspecies, but it is going to take smart breeders who know their stuff to accurately preserve what we have in captivity. The second thrust of major importance is to facilitate field research in NG while simultaneously preserving the captive population while establishing specimens who can be reintroduced into a preserve or preserves located in NG. Reintroduction is obviously a huge task requiring manpower and money, lots of money. Public interest and sentiment are required to attract financial support. Again, thank you for your interest and questioning. Both are extremely important. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop doing this. Really your not doing anybody a favour. Really, not even you.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Inu, please stop with this nonsense. Talk pages are for discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject. Bee4Real

Inugami, Please forgive me. What am I doing wrong? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You're promoting the NGSD. You're writing all this stuff, nobody asked for. This page here is for improving the article not for something like that. And to be honest with stuff like that you effectively erode any notion of credibility.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu and Bee, I really don't understand where you're coming from on this, but will bow to your hostility and will shut up. If you decide somewhere along the line that you'd like to know something about NGSD, you may reach me at oldsingerman20@yahoo.com. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Olds, what they are saying is that you are using wiki improperly and that the article page serves as a civil forum to improve the site - your post is more of a private email.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess we won't be learning any more interesting things about the NGSD from this obviously knowledgable man. That makes me sad.

The rules are in place for a reason, and should only be applied if that reason exists. If breaking them doesn't harm anything/one, or if following them does, or any combination of the two, we are instructed to WP:IAR otherwise we will be in violation of the unfortunately named Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_dick. Note where it says "Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?" If you don't like reading his posts, why wouldn't it be a better solution just to ignore them them? We want to encourage this man's participation because there may be ways to use his knowledge to improve the article. He obviously has a love of teaching about the NGSD and wants to contribute, something rare on wikipedia for an expert to do. I gather there is bad blood between your two groups, but many people come here to learn about the NGSD and ask questions about it and these are good things he can help with and they don't care about your "war". You seem determined to drive him away. Chrisrus (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a war, in my mind. Don has valuable insight, no one has ever said and yes, give and take is in order. But wiki has rules to make sure the article is factual. If Olds doesn't like the rules, like said in one of his rants - he should step away from wiki and let his website speak.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No it was simply advice. If you call that a war that is your problem. I'm not here to make enemies but I also want stand aside when I think that false information is stated.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Crisrus, Thank you for your kind words and bits of encouragement. Your points are well taken and appreciated on this end. I do think however, that although my intentions were honorable, I was in the wrong. I also feel the remarks by Inu and Bee were rude and out-of-line, but I also feel that Inu has been working very hard trying to get his version up-to-snuff and was tired of the interruptions. Our emotional investment and years of work are too great for us to be subdued totally so easily and yes, we are both retired teachers. I am simply learning the rules and the limitations. My first goal now must be how to present material that can be accepted on wikipedia.

As to the war between the two groups, yes it exasperating to be blocked at every turn in the road. As evidenced in the exchanges we've all read, there are people out there who dislike me so much that they will go to great lengths to cause my wife and I heartache. All this is not a problem to be addressed on wikipedia and that is another reason why I need to keep still. I will not be responsible for bringing the battle onto wikipedia. It has no place here. I refuse to stoop below a professional level. My wife and I are outgunned and we know it. Please excuse this sidetrack but I felt this editor deserved a reply. There need be no further comments regarding this issue. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page (it's use)

Adding to the above discussion, I was not aware that the talk page had to be filled with referenced and cited info. I always thought that stuff was for the page itself. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong however. Unfortunately Chrisrus is right imho. Looking at it from my seat in this audience, if you want to learn about Singer genetics, reference Alan Wilton. If you want to find published articles about a Singer, Matznick would be the source. If you want to know something about Singers that has not been published or might offer a differing opinion, Osm20 is the place to go. He was not hired to study the NGSD. He does it by choice. His claim to fame is not his knowledge of the NGSD. He shares it with you by choice. His income is not dependant on the NGSD. He sold 2 in 23yrs.

I have nothing for you to reference or to prove my statement so don't ask. I do know most everyone in the usa that has had extensive exposure to Singers. There is nobody in North America who has spent more time with and with more NGSD's by shear numbers then Osm20 (Brisbin & Matznick included). The one exception might be Osm20's wife. Tomcue2 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomcue, Although my wife and I applaud your impassioned post, for the sake of truthful literature we have to reply in the following manner. Extensive exposure to NGSD does not necessarily mean the person has an extensive knowledge of them. Additionally, just because a person or persons has opted to not make money off them does not mean they know anything about them. To profit from animals such as NGSD is a private matter. The acid test for credible personal knowledge is the fact that others are accepting of the knowledge that person offers. The same is true of scientific research. Just because it is "scientific research" or "published works" doesn't make it credible unless those reviewing it confirm it as credible. It seems to me that this wiki article when finished(if ever) will be the result of a "consensus" among numerous editors who review all of the available information and decide what is credible and what is hogwash. People will believe what they "want" to believe no matter who presents it or how it is presented and that is the way it should be in order to preserve free thought. However, then too, the rules must be flexible enough to allow for an honest and diversified exchange. Additionally, those participating in the discussion must be accepting and open to other editors ideas and perspectives.. Without an honest exchange there will exist only a dictatorially produced article which will be biased and prejudicial. To produce an accurate and meaningful article about New Guinea Dingoes all of the editors are going to have to respect the individual knowledge and expertise that each editor brings to the table. The discussion will have to be conducted in a civil and professional manner. Otherwise the entire experience will be an exercise in futility and will end in chaos. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When you want informations about Singers from an independent source, you need to try Dr. Dorit Urd Feddersen-Petersen from the Domnestic Institute in Kiel.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

inu, Yes I would like that. Would it be possible for you to email his contact information to oldsingerman20@yahoo.com?? Thanks very much. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done I'm sending you the link to her profile right now. I will look for some more stuff, If I'm not mistaken there is another research station who has Singers too.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's Get On With the Article

My Wife and I are eager to get on with the actual construction of the article. Should we invest more energy in the old article or does Inu have his ready to go? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

New Article

In response to Osm20. My artcile was ready and has just been published. Since I couldn't write everything in the commentary I choose to say it here. For those who wonder where the link on the vocalizations has gone, although the site had a different adress it looked exactly like the website above and obviously had the same content, therefore the same page would have been presented two times. Under see also I deleted the dingo-link because that article is already linked in the NGSD article. On the sighting of a dog in recent times near Lake Tawa: I looked that book up at Google Books (the book was The ecology of Papua Part 1) and the search engine could find singer, but nothing about a sighting or Tawa and the sentence had originally a completely different source. However, if anybody has that book and can verify it and also tell as exactly what the book said, the information can be re-entered. The sighting of a Singer would be breaking news for many, however because of that we must be sure to know what the author said because it doesn't have to be one just because an observer said so. This is a delicate topic so the rules have to be strict. And for the article itself. It was already published and peer reviewed on the German wikipedia and completely approved, just for info. And for those who wonder where the "Critically endangered" of the taxobox is. There was no site who definitely stated the status of the population as such, so any classification in that regard would be against the rules. Furthermore the article clearly states that the captive population is highly inbred and that the wild population might be extinct and if anybody doesn't get what that means, nobody here could help then. Ok people, fire away.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, It seems no one wants to start so I will. Since I'm 65 years old and don't care if people think I'm dumb, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last sentence. The article is very thought provoking. It represents a great deal of effort. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah the brave and the bold ;-). If you mean the sentence "Ok people, fire away", (I don't think you mean the last sentence of the article) another way to say it would be "Bring it on". Or just: "state what you think". As for the article being thought provoking, the whole species Canis lupus is. Despite all the reasearch on wild wolves, there are still huge gaps and plenty of wrong stereotypes around. It's even worse with domestic dogs. Any article on Canis lupus is practically designated to provoke thoughts, especially since they time and again come up with new surprises (the first wolves to permanently settle in my land did that on an army area that was still in use and have you ever heard about the subway dogs of Moscow?). And I would be surprised if that problem would be solved in the next 50 years. But back to the topic: just state what you think and if you have reliable new data, present it. By the way, none of you happens to possess the book "The Ecology of Papua" do you, or know a library or a person who has it? The report of a Singer would be interesting.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, My error. I should have quoted the sentence. I don't understand what you mean when you say, "Furthermore the article states the captive population is highly inbred and the wild population might be extinct and if anybody doesn't get what that means , nobody here could help then." I don't understand what you're saying with that statement. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh that was the one. Well it had to do with that the conservation status was not in the taxobox. As I said the red list doesn't list them seperately and therefore there is no reliable source for such a statement. Since the dingo entrance lists the dingo as vulnerable with the population "decreasing", however, vulnerable doesn't cover the state of the NGSD population. Nonetheless the article states that the captive population is highly inbred, that the wild populations is either small or mixed with other dogs and that the captive population is still small. And you have to be at a big loss of logic thinking not to grasp what that means.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, I'm at a big loss of logical thinking. Please explain to me what does your statement mean? I'm sorry to be so dense, but I just don't understand what you're saying..osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, second try: When you have a certain population were the only definitely known specimens are in captivity and no verified sightings exist for over 30 years and that captive population is descended from only 8 specimen and is today still small; than it is only logical to assume that this population is endangered due to low numbers and inbreeding.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • • all - the new article is the violates WP:User, NPOV and the normal process to modify an article. I will undo the wholesale edit and sugggest the following approach: 1. Build consensus on section names and titles. 2. Edit sections one at a time, week or two between sections to give editors time to review, post questions and modify as they see fit.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What in Inugami's new page violates a NPOV? He has worked long and hard gathering info from both North American and European sources. There is much more content and would be far easier to just tweak his creation then to toil over adding to the old page. Tomcue2 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you bother to see how other editors incorporate major changes - apparently not. You are wrong on "far easier", short cutting the process while easier is still wrong. We need to do this step by step in an orderly basis--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I had basically the same article in the German wikipedia and no one felt violated because of it. So where is the violation?? By the way horsracer, "good" job. Replacing the better article with the worse one. That makes so much sense. By the way, what sort of sections should I edit one at a time? That article only had the entry (which isn't one at all) and the history-study section. And by the way Mrhorseracer, it's not as though you didn't knew what was going on, that article was on my page a longe time, if you didn't like it you had sufficient time to say something.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. No one looks at the German version since few know the language. This is about your lack of knowledg on how the wiki wholesale process should work, not content. Again, some good content AND some wrong content AND content that needs verification. I'll post on discussion page tonight my suggested step-by-step process to enhance the article.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh really. Which content is wrong, which needs verification and where do you know that from? And if, why didn't you say so before? You had plenty of time and didn't use it. And now anybody should believe that you do that for the best of the article?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't have "plenty" of time. Chill and reply to the new section later--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you had enough time to notice it. And it was on my page for quite a while.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Singer Sighting

Good news people. I found another source that states such a sighting and seems to be reliable. It says: At least one animal was seen by one of our local guides, who scavenged a freshly-killed Dorcopsulus wallaby from it for our scientific collection. We also collected singing dog scat samples for potential future dietary and genetic analyses. Our local assistants assured us that the dogs at Lake Tawa were truly wild-living dogs, and there were no villages near our relatively remote camp. I have to check the rest of the source first, but it looks good at first glance.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well sorry people, horseracer seemed to think it is a good idea to erase all the work. Everything gone now.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is a process to incorporate significant changes to the article - you chose to disregard and blasted everything out. I outlined the steps to incorporate this sanely. Let's have a constructive dialog on how to add your suggested content. Yes, there is good work by you. I'll be the first to say much should - but you don't do it all at once.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors, Isn't there some way we could put the two versions side by side on our screens so we could compare and edit??? As for doing things sanely, maybe mrshorsracer has changed her attitude nowadays since there are some bigger guns involved, but she showed no mercy when she came in and "blasted" the old article out of the water and replaced it with her version. She didn't ask. She didn't warn. She didn't even wiggle her rattles. She just wiped out a lot of people's work on her whim. So she has no right to lecture protocol and if she does discuss it we're not going to believe her anyway. "A pot should not call a kettle black." I think it's a pretty lousy move to go in and destroy others work without warning and then, once you have your version all neat and tidy and in place and in control, then outline steps and procedures to be followed by others before they can edit your version., even threatening others with arbitration and threatening to have them banned from wikipedia. I hate to say it, but I think this article's construction is going to the dogs. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, last I checked, you boys wiped everything out and started again - a big no, no - learn the rules--Mrhorseracer (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only one who things so. And like I said before there was plenty of time when the article was only on my page and all the "major players" here knew that. And I said that I was going to update it for months so nobody can say, that there was no "warning". In fact the new one was based on the old one. I edited it on my page because that's what we do in the german wikipedia. Editing it step for step on the public page over weeks like horseracer suggests is useless. What if someobody wants to read it during that time?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inu, I agree. Even as dumb as I am about wikipedia and computer work in general, I had no trouble finding your work or reviewing it knowing you intended to replace the old article with yours. The only hypothesis we can come up with regarding mrshorseracer's amazing surprise might be that this particular mare is a horse of a different color or perhaps she had a memory lapse. There was plenty of warning. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Numbers in Breeding Programs

Editors, As we know, there are actually two captive breeding programs in place for NGSD that are sponsored by the two organizations: New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society and New Guinea Singing Dog International. There are also several private, unaffiliated breeding programs. The current NGSD wiki page(the one current in view)only mentions the Conservation Society's program which they call the Controlled Breeding Program. The other affiliated program, the one sponsored by New Guinea Singing Dog International(NGSDI) isn't mentioned. In order for the article to be unbiased and not prejudiced, we feel the NGSDI program should be include. The proper name for the NGSDI captive breeding program is The NGSD International New Guinea Dingo Cooperative Breeding Program. Unaffiliated breeding programs have historically been reluctant to make their names known publically due to numerous privacy issues and we will respect their rights to privacy. Would it be possible to have this information added? Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly seems fair to me - or to make it even more neutral, don't talk about one or the other, but rather genericly - would need to see the exact wording.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I can't add it. You quoted from an old 2004 abstract reference so even though the information is outdated, biased, prejudiced,(the word "documented" is only used by Dr. Brisbin, Matznick and the Conservation Society) and inaccurate(I doubt that there are 50 captive NGSD being bred worldwide)it stays in place for the world to read so they don't even yet understand just how threatened these dogs really are!! How totally frustrating!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. ;-)--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An Idea

Editors, I have an idea and at first glance, it may sound frivolous, but since this whole NGSD issue is so intense, why don't we see if we could agree on a short paragraph re Singing Dogs(and just use the names New Guinea Singing Dog and NGSD) and then put in every link(no references because they're almost all accessible by links anyway) we can find on the internet(that are acceptable by wiki) and let readers go to them by themselves. That way they could read all this old outdated research and hypothetical hogwash on their own and we wouldn't have to argue about it. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree with your idea - the whole wiki concept is to work collectively for the better article - we will get there. You are basically saying give up - wrong approach. Also, just because a reference points to research that you consider "old" does not invalidate it.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mrsh, We certainly agree that age does not necessarily invalidate as evidenced by the old geezer typing this post. Regarding old research I'd say its validity depends of how well it was constructed at the start and how relevant it is nowadays. When a 6 year old reference is quoted as saying there are less than 50 NGSD in the documented breeding program, that is saying two things. One, it's rather meaningless since "less than 50 could mean 49 or it could mean 2. Dumb! It could also mean that the information is simply out of date nowadays but is great history if you want to point out how poorly Singers have fared within the Documented Breeding Program since right now there aren't probably more than 50 worldwide.. So what happened with the Documented Controlled Breeding Program? What happened to all their documented breeders?? Went sterile? Poorly managed? Hummm... If you would follow up the statement with current information which you didn't, the statement would have some meaning and value. So basically you have offered old, invalid information which has only served to brag about there being some sort of high class breeding program called "documented" that has failed miserably. It seems silly to brag about and reference a program that has obviously failed. Perhaps I read the sentences incorrectly. Perhaps less than 50 six years ago is better than less then 50 today. I'm not even going to comment on the credibility of your notion of "working collectively". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Out With the Old. In With the New.

Tomcue. Fine by me. Let's muck out the stable. Historically speaking we should expect a calvary charge. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

osm20 . Obviously Inu thinks the new page with more complete info is the better way to go because he posted it. Well let me re-think that and await Inu actually stating as much so that I have a cited reference as to his preference. Now you agree along with myself. Does this constitute a consensus? Tomcue2 (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

tomcue, I don't have many good answers, but the old military style of using calvary to charge armored tanks went by the wayside many years ago. We can only hope that compromise will be a better choice. My wife and I will throw in reinforcements as needed. It has taken a while, but it appears that the ghost rider who led the charge to devastation has been unhorsed. Maybe we can move on and continue this campaign in a diplomatic manner which hopefully may end in a peaceful settlement. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the new article is better because it doesn't write things without a source and because it has an actual structure. Since horseracer undid everything again, well I had made a copy just for that so I don't need to worry. As for you two, for wikipedia it doesn't matter even if you had hundred of years of experience. For all we other wikipedians know you too could just as well be lying or have research but be biased. Therefore there need to be sources. You can't just add something because you think that is right. And just because you Osm20 disagree that the Singer is a feral dog doesn't mean that this is the truth. But let's stay with the topic of this section: 1. How do you two actually want to proceed. 2. What is meant with "consensus"?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave the two articles where they currently reside and work on Mr. bargho's version at his user page. can discuss there as well. This article reads well to most people so it could stay on for reader's while the other version is being rewritten. The accepted definition for "consensus" works for us. Basically consensus is thought of as theoretical or positional agreement as a group. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We can work on my page sure. But give me some time, I have just found a few new sources and I know one of them has something for the article. Further Tom send me tons of pictures, I have already choosen a few for commons and some of them I wanted to use for the article from the start, I just couldn't do it legally. One is the Singer on flickr that hwols into a microphon. When I asked for consensus I ment consensus of facts, what the majority of the sources say and of course the most reliable ones. I'm not going along if the article will just be a consensus of opinions.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which NGSD Page to Tweak

Below is the admin complaint, some admin advice, and a comment from me. I have reverted the page to Inugami's more complete form. It will be far easier to tweak the larger page then to try and have Inugami have to rebuild and reference all of the added information. If mrhorseracer were to take a long look, most of the information from the original page is still there. Inu was able to add a ton of referenced info from sources other then the organization that you represent. I am certain that none of us will agree on all points on the page but our opinions are based on the information that has been fed to us. Tomcue2 (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Proper Method to update article when lack of consensus

Over at the New Guinea Singing Dog article, several editors rewrote the article from scratch and complete redid it in one massive change. I reverted and have proposed a Path Forward that will allow all editors time to construct a quality article (most of the editor are newbees, including me. We have differences of opinions on what the content should be. I don't want a war to break out. My question is, what is the proper way to go about this. Might be helpful to have more experienced editors add comments at the Singing Dog article page so we all see.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You (and the other editors) should not be just pasting your preferred version of the article over the changes that other editors are making. This is not the way to build consensus, or to build an article. You have made 35 edits to the article, and many of them are reversions of other people's work, or reverting back to your preferred version of the article. Today, for instance. You have removed an enormous amount of material from the article, maybe 75% of the content. Why? Surely it is worth keeping? Diannaa TALK 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for taking the time to comment. Fyi, Wiki user Inugami-bargho took the original NGSD page, placed it on his own page and made it his project. He did the same for the Dingo page. All indications are that Inugami has used cited and referenced information and his knowledge and experience of both wiki and of primitive canid's warrants some respect. Most if not all of the information from the page in it's original form is still there. The added information reflects a more NPOV. I and others involved agree that taking the more complete version and tweaking it would be a much easier process at this point. I will return the article to it's more complete form. Tomcue2 (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed reprinted text, edited, restored: DNA Evidence

Removed below as it was copied from another website, without explanation or cites and worded incomprehensibly. Also dated. Please fix before restoring. Notes from previous editors left in. **** --Hafwyn (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

R. Wayne, et al. in 1992 reported on base of mitochondrial DNA, state unique features of genome NGSD, various compared with 33 dog breeds also studied. !---Can someone who knows what the last sentence is trying to say clean up the grammar?

Sure. I'll try. Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) ---

In 1976 V Simonses published results of his study on New Guinea Singing Dog blood enzymes, in which two totally new proteins distinct from jackals, wolves and other canids, were found.

Since 1987 Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, a senior ecologist, has been studying NGSD DNA and behavior. In 1996 Dr. Brisbin, in collaboration with Mr. Will Gergits of Therion Corporation, (Troy, New York) found them to contain genetic markers that are also present in dingo, but not found in common grey wolf and the domestic dog breeds in the study. Dr. Brisbin and Janice Koler-Matznick are currently preparing a NGSD ethogram that describes several behaviors unique to this wild dog.

Sorry, not sure what that means. I may be able to tell after I finished the article on the dingo, because my research also brought alot of information on the NGSD. And by the way, some differences are not enough to classify them as a new species. Up to what I know they are neither morphologically nor biologically a seperate species.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that some differences do make a new species. The ethogram is available from the conservation website--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. Unless you say that a pug is a species of it's own.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Inugami, about that. The New Guinea Singing dog seems to me to be best thought of as a Breed of Dingo.

I would also like to comment on the above text. Please read it again. I and others have edited it for readability, and I think the significance is clear. They found that they are able to tell the NGSD DNA from that of Australian Dingo, and then another marker that distinguishes both the NGSD and the Australian Dingo on the one hand from ordinary Canis lupis familiaris dogs on the other.

What I really want to know is where the original source of the text is. Can we at least determine that it's not an obvious hoax? We could start by Googling the names of these people and places referred to, and do a Google scholor or some such search and find out several things: One, do such papers really exist? Two, are the sources reliable? Three: Is our edit of the mystery site text a fair summary of what the articles actually say? It seems to jive with everything we say in the article as it stands.

Next, we should check

Also, what with the heavy editing, and if we can find where it was taken from, could/should we remove the hidden text markers by now and allow this text to be seen on the main talk page? What if we cite it? It could end up summarized in the article. I think it'd be a fine addition if done right.

Dr. Brisbin sponsored one very small study by Dr. Gergits in 1987 when canid genetics had just started. It was never followed-up nor extended so it is not "since 1987." Their results were inconclusive due to small sample sizes and number of breeds included. Now there is good genetic evidence of the dingo/singer split from domestic dogs being at least 4,000 years ago <vonHolt, B. M. , et al., 2010. Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history unerlying dog domesticattion. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature08837 and subsequent printed issue>. The dating from DNA haplotypes has a large margin of error, and this date is the most conservative estimate of the separation of dingo/NGSD and domestic dogs, which could easily be twice that long ago.

The study referenced above as Wayne 1992 may be incorrect, as at that point in time Wayne did not have any NGSD samples. Wayne was part of the group that published a paper <Vila, C., et al. 1997. Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science 276: 1687-1989> that indicated that the dingo and Singer have a mtDNA type, D18, that groups within the largest clade of mtDNA types for domestic dogs, which merely means it is related and could have been one of the ancestral types others were derived from. In 2004 Savolainen's group published a paper <Savolainen, P., et al. 2004. A detailed picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 12387-12390> that indicated the dingo and NGSD share a mtDNA type that is very similar to types in some anceint Asian-origin domestic dog breeds such as the Siberian husky: not "identical" to the domestic dog types, but just separated by one or two mutations. This was mtDNA, and related/similar haplotypes are often not even exclusive to a species, but could be present in related species due to descent from a common maternal ancestor some time in the past, maybe even very distant past.

The most interesting genetic result was the blood protien differences found by V. Simonsen in 1976 before genes could be directly sequenced. He found that the NGSD had one blood protien that matched red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and another that matched coyote (Canis latrans) and red fox, and they were not the same as the types shared by the gray wolf, domestic dog, and Australian dingo. When whole genome nuclear DNA is possible, these types of evolutionary differences between NGSDs and other canids will be revealed. This is still years away and we must work with the best science-based evidence currently available, whch still shows the dingoes are not the "same as" domestic dogs or gray wolves and are worthy of conservation efforts. Jkoler (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that anybody with common sense will just believe that? You're writing like those people who think that they are always right. And why is this work of Simonson correct and not flawed? When was that profen a second time and by whom?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Last I check in order to be published (like my last paper) peers would insure I had no error as best they could, it is not infalliable, but - that's why you assume (good faith) that is corrrect. Do you have a specific issue, or just want to rant about "common sense"Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well lookee here Inu & Osm20. Unless I am mistaken it looks like Jkoler forgot to sign in as Jkoler prior to responding to Inu's comment. We have identified our first troll of the NGSD page and it's Matznick herself posing as Mrhorseracer. On the subject of peers reviewing your published work for errors, no need for you and I to continue the topic of the omitted birth date in the Ethogram because you wrote it. Tomcue2 (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well "horseracer", or hwo ever you are. The obvious flaw that you have is in your argumentations and the arrogance Matznicks works show as though she can see into the furture. So dingoes "are not the same as" domestic dogs and gray wolves? And you think that all these beings grouped under domestic dog and gray wolf are all the same? This is where common sense obviously fails here, no matter which one, we are talking of beings with a very wide distribution range and especially the domestic dog has been molded into so many shapes that some of them no longer look like the typical canine. The domestic dog has a very wide range of characteristics but Matznick doesn't classify them into different subspecies. Furthermore her classification of the dingo as a seperate species is completely contradicted by the high number of modern day dingo-mongrels. A mixture of two truly seperate species would not be able to easily breed with other hybrids and in generally produce fertile offspring. Furthermore she obviously lacks information she should have.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Move it to Dingo page

They're basically the same subspecies of canid. Plus the article doesn't have alot of info.--4444hhhh (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The dingo article has almost no NGSD-specific info, so if that's a concern, deleting this article is counterproductive. I disagree with the "merge" you're attempting. Please try to use the merge process instead of just deleting this page. Tiger Khan (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend not to merge it, since the NGSD differs from the australian dingo in some aspects and therefore it is not sure whether they are dingoes are just closely related. By the way the whole debate about it's status (that debate is more disputed than that of the dingo whos classification basically depends on the classification of the domestic dog) should be adressed and that might be to much for the dingo-article, especially after it's revised be.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the question of NGSD status within canids is still uncertain, this article should remain. I'll be adding more research - still a valid page.

--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication at MSOW that they are considering subspecies recognition. Instead, it seems to me, they have relatively recently accepted more and more such animals as Dingos. See that article, Dingo, and look at the map. They have the dingo ranging up into southeast Asia now, whereas before, I seem to recall, only the Australian animal was considered a dingo.

Nevertheless, I see no reason to merge this article with dingo. Subspecies recognition isn't necessary to have an article. There are articles about every breed of domestic dog, so why shouldn't there be an article about every "breed" (if that's the best word for it) of Dingo? I not only maintain that this article should remain, but hopefully await articles on the Mikong dingo or other "breeds" or "types" of Canis lupus dingo should, maybe some day. Chrisrus (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This can be done. However it only makes sense if there is enough info and if that info is "unique" enough for the dscribed population. Right now only the Singer fullfills those criteria. There is not enough specific infos about Thai dingoes do justify a separate article. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough information on the "Thai dingo" to qualifiy for a stub- or start- class article, at least to hold the place so the orgainization scheme could be set up?

Also, I noticed that some names I recognized of some east Asian dog breeds, which do have articles (Jindo for example) are mentioned by your "Canids" article (thank you) under the C.l.dingo section where they give the foreign-language equivilents of the term. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that they seemed to be saying that, in their expert opinon, they have judged animals such as the Jindo to be more on the C.l.dingo side, rather than the familiaris side, of the "domestic dog" ligature that MSW3 seems (to me, at least, I'm told I don't understand it) to be drawing when they put that term in brackets under the comments section under the two non-"wolf" subspecies.

By the way, I find MSW3's decision to call the ligature there "domestic dog" slightly unfortunate for us, because our use of it in such sentences as "the dingo is a domestic dog" seems to have at least the potential to have the effect on the reader of indicating that all of them are equally domesticated. Those on the C.l.dingo side, as we all know, often make better wild animals than they do domesticated ones, the opposite may be said of those on the "familiaris" side. So while even though MSW3 calls the ligature (what is the correct term for what MSW3 is refers to when they form a group under the same level by adding a word in brackets under the comment section to unite a group of two or more taxa at the same level as others not so tagged?), even though MSW3 adds adjective "domestic" to the name of the C.l.familaris-dingo "union", does that mean we absolutely have to if the effect on the reader, who is supposed to be assumed to be completely uninformed, might not get it? My point is, why not just call it "dog" instead of "domestic dog"? This would jive fairly well with common usage, and could be justified on the basis of our Wiki Edict to prefer common, as opposed to technical, terms wherever possible: most people already think of all the other subspecies as "wolves" and both familaris and C.l.dingo as "dogs". On the other hand, when speaking under the level of the ligature, where we speak of dingos as distinct from "dogs" (which MSW3 seems to me to be provisionally allowing us to choose to do, whenever conveniet, such as when Wikipedia talks about "dingos interbreeding with domestic dogs"); in such cases, only familaris is intended by the word "(domestic) dog". We could I suppose refer to domesticated' dogs, as opposed to dingos. Whew! What interesting, but confusing problems nature/taxonomy can hand the English language/Wikipedia!Chrisrus (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really read what is written. I already told you that there is not enough information on Thai dingoes and the unclear status of many asian dog-populations on whether they are dingoes or not is mentioned in the dingo-article. And I don't think that you are doing anybody a favour with your suggestions. "Dog" is even more unclear than domestic dog. "Domestic dog" is much more in tune here with the scientific data. No offense but are you sure that you are not opposed to the term domestic dog because you don't want the dingo to be one, because that would somehow make it "less valuable"? I'm asking this because this is actually very common, especially conservationists and animal activists mostly regard wild or better shy beings as more valuable as those that live with humans (no matter in which way) and the term feral out of reasons I can't fathom often has a bad meaning for those people.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomic and conservation status - at odds with each other

Something is not right in the article. It lists the name Canis lupus hallstromi for these dogs and references "Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press" as a source. However, when you look on the website of this version that name is not found and hallstromi is a synonym for dingo. Furthermore the box lists them as vulnerable, however that source uses the dingo, so both clash. Because, if the singer is a separate subspecies, its conservation status (considered the inbred and small captive population) would more likely be "critcially endangered".--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The taxonomic status for the NGSD was reclassified to canis lupus dingo from the previous hallstromi. This is where the confusion comes about. Tomcue2 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tomcue is correct. In a way. First of all, MSOW doesn't even list NGSD or AU Dingo. It lists only Dingo. Also then in Dingo, they have Domestic dog listed as a common name. But being a common name only, "domestic dog" as used in MSOW carries no taxonomic designation. It is simply a common name, more like a nickname. Hallstomi is in the synonym list. Familiaris is no where to be found. Recall now that we're looking at dingo here, not NGSD or even AU Dingo. The synonym list of names is a history of names previously used. If you'll notice, they are listed in chronological order. So in summary, regarding NGSD taxonomic classification as related by MSOW, MSOW has literally left NGSD and AU Dingo out of the book. Why??? The why is simple. In 2006 vortex I think, came on here and asked about NGSD taxonomy. Now 4 years later, the issue is still being debated. The 3rd edition of MSOW was written between 2003 and 2005 and was published in 2005. The 4th edition has yet to be published. AT THE CURRENT TIME IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER HAS BEEN GIVEN REGARDING THE NEW GUINEA SINGING DOG TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION!!!!! So what makes Inugami or jkoler matznick mrhorseracr or whoever think they can make decisions the whole of the scientific community has been debating for many, many years without decision? Sounds dumbern a stick to me. From here, it sounds like a waste of time for two wiki editors to think they can outguess or out debate the "big dogs" in the scientific community. Who do they think they're kidding?? In the meantime, who is suffering from debate and indecision? The NGSD themselves, that's who.. NGSD are out there in "no man's land" with no scientific status. They cannot be officially designated as being endangered or in need of protection. Basically, the scientific community is driving NGSD to extinction, has been for a number of years and we hope these scientific whiz kids are really proud of themselves. Here again, basically, then, it is up to people outside the scientific community which would include any individuals and zoos whether public or private, we need still to carry the ball for these dogs until the scientific community gets off their duff and makes some taxonomic and origin decisions. Once again, mrhorseracer and Mr. Bargho, you are wasting everyone's time here as well as the dogs you are writing about. Stow it!!!! Several of us think editors should simply drop the entire taxonomic and most of the origin subject and write up what is known to be fact. Then allow readers to visit other sites to find our all the theory, conjecture, and opinions. If we can present to the public a clear description of these dogs as well as the problems they're facing that would be a good thing, seems to us. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's being a dingo would have to harm conservation efforts. After all, the fact that a wolf subspecies is plentiful in Canada doesn't seem to harm the conservation efforts of those to keep it from becoming extinct in the USA, so why should the fact of dingos in australia endanger efforts to conserve those in New Guinea? It's still a fascination revelation, I think, that dingos live anywhere besides Australia. The New Guinea Singing Dog may be closer to the primordial dog than any other on the planet, who knows. They are very important to conserve, in my opinion, in captivity at least, for that reason alone, and I applaud the efforts of those who work to maintain that genetic line alive and thank them for their work no less if they make a living or a reputation doing so. In fact, these motivations probably are behind most progress in science, and in any other field.

Although I don't have any say in the matter, I don't really see them as "just a dingo". They must have been isolated from other dingos for a very long time, probably much longer than any breed, and seem quite differnt from familiar dingos. For example, they seem to have a climbing ability, and a wonderful call that sometimes sounds like no other dingo or dog. This is my personal point of view and opinion of the NGSD, however, and as such have no place whatsoever in what the article should say. I just make these comments in the hopes that they will foster a more cooperative atmostphere. If writing a factual article about the New Guinea Singing Dog harms conservation efforts or not, that's still my only agenda. I'm not here to save them. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Dingo & Singer are not all that different if you see the two side by side. Most of the physical differences can be attributed to the physical environment including the prey that they need consume to thrive. To answer your question as to why Matznick wants to have Singers re-classified as a seperate species, only her followers or Matznick herself can answer that. I do not know of anyone else who has studied the NGSD in recent history that agrees with the seperate species theory. Regarding a Singers climbing ability, a 6ft chain link enclosure that is dig proof will contain them so an NGSD's climbing abilities are limited. They cannot ascend a tree that is perpendicular to the ground unless the trunk of the tree is narrow enough to allow the Singer to use a fireman style method. To breifly explain, the Singer will wrap it's front paws around the narrow truck while using it's back legs to thrust it upward. I have witnessed this happen only when the subject Singer is motivated to while giving chase to a cat, squirrel, etc. Tomcue2 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FE, Inugami's interpretation of MSOW is incorrect. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Why?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ISIS vs. MSW3

We have to have some kind of authority on Wikipedia or we will have chaos. Some seem to be saying that that authority should be ISIS, not Mammal Species of the World. I've been looking at this ISIS site for a short while, and think it's probably the ultimate authority in terms of facts such as how many of which species exist in zoos around the world. It does not seem to be intended to be the authority as to how many species genea and species there are in the Urotrichini and every other taxonomic question we've ever had on wikipedia about mammals. For that, we use Mammal Species of the World. To understand why, see their home page, where it says, and I quote:

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3) is a database of mammalian taxonomy. It is hoped that this database on the World Wide Web can be used as a convenient on-line reference for identifying or verifying recognized scientific names and for taxonomic research. The names are organized in a hierarchy that includes Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily, Genus, Species and Subspecies. Records include the following fields:

•Scientific name •Author's name and year described •Original publication citation •Common name •Type Species •Type Locality •Distribution •Comments •Status •Synonyms The citation for this work is: Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp. (Available from Johns Hopkins University Press, 1-800-537-5487 or (410) 516-6900, or at http://www.press.jhu.edu).

This third edition is enhanced by the identification of subspecies, and by the inclusion of authority information for all synonyms. Further information about the book and about the contents of each field can be found in the preface and introductory material.

This online list was compiled under the auspices of the American Society of Mammalogists. Copyright 2005 Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights are reserved. The data in this checklist of mammal species of the world are being presented for non-commercial, personal, and collections management use only. Copying or redistributing these data in any manner for personal or corporate gain is not permitted. A list of the authors responsible for various portions of the text can be found here.

For an analysis of new species found in the third edition see: D. M. Reeder , K. M. Helgen, and D. E. Wilson. 2007. Global Trends and Biases in New Mammal Species Discoveries. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University, 269:1-36. pdf [ click here].

This project is in collaboration with the Division of Mammals of the Department of Vertebrate Zoology at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution and The American Society of Mammalogists.

The scientific names from the MSW3 database are available as a custom dictionary that can be used with various Microsoft Office applications. To download the dictionary, right-click on this link and choose 'Save Target As ...' (or the equivalent, depending on the browser that you are using). [Installation instructions for custom dictionaries vary depending on the version of Microsoft Office that you are using. To start, try here.] Thanks to Doug Kelt, UC Davis, for creating and sharing this dictionary.

In contrast, ISIS's "Mission and Values" page states the following:

ISIS delivers and supports the world’s most current, comprehensive and reliable source of knowledge on animals and their environments for zoos, aquariums and related organizations to serve institutional, regional and global animal management and conservation goals. By 2010, ISIS will be recognized by our members as a top performing non-profit organization delivering a powerful customer experience. We will be measured by implementing a state-of-the-art ZIMS software program, doubling the current funding from alternative sources, increasing membership annually, and having a high-performing organization that lives our values and beliefs daily.

It is the mission of ISIS to facilitate international collaboration in the collection and sharing of knowledge on animals and their environments for zoos, aquariums and related organizations by achieving the following Goals:

Supporting, maintaining and ensuring the continuous development of comprehensive software systems and tools Providing services that are essential for members and prospective members to manage the animals in their care Serving as an independent, impartial body which promotes the development of standards and practices that enhance the integrity and usefulness of data on animals and their environments Obtaining the broadest possible participation in data collection and sharing for zoos, aquariums and related organizations worldwide Promoting the general scientific usage of the knowledge beyond animal management Planning and managing the resources (human, financial and technological) needed to meet all of these goals

I hope you will all agree that, in cases where these two sources disagree, MSW trumps ISIS. This should include the referent of this article, which ISIS calls Canis lupus hallstromi/Singing dog, but MSW has not called it that for some time, if ever, and instead indicates that all hallstromi are reclassified as Canis lupus dingo. (Unless, of course, you have some other explanation for the fact that they list the word "hallstromi" under "synonyms" under "Canis lupus dingo".) Apparantly, for reasons I can only speculate about, ISIS has not yet updated the taxonomy of this animal. I suppose it might have something to do with its primary interest in zoos, some of whom might not be happy about the change. Or maybe they just haven't heard the news from whatever source they get their taxonomic info from, because I know they don't claim to do that job themselves. In the case of Mammals, that's MSW's job.

Besides, by saying "MSW trumps all", I'm just quoting what was told to me by other editors when I had sources that disagreed, even when it really ran in conflict with my agenda. For example, I was not allowed to re-name the article Shrew-mole (Neurotrichus) "American Shrew-Mole" even though my reliable source, http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html, and several other sources called it "American Shrew-Mole" because if MSW doesn't call it that, I couldn't call it that, no matter who else did and how much the system of articles and how the progress of my disambiguation project for the term "shrew-mole" would be stymied and how difficult it would make it for the reader. This all on the grounds that, as I was told at the time, "nothing is more authoritative." If you disagree with that, please let me know so I can go back and revisit that discussion. Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "American Shrew Mole"Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, that MSOW is the better source. To keep with the topic, there classification ofthe domestic dog in several subcategories doesn't make sense, it sounds as though they are classifying breeds.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do You want to take only one source? Take one source for taxobox all over WP. But in the article tell the reader the different points of few: you have NGSD as taxon, NGSD as c.l.dingo, as well as as dog breed (what would be c.l.familiaris). And all of the authors have reasons for their point of view, which should be here in the artcle. --Anka Friedrich (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Acutually I meant for the taxobox. For the name section the other names have to be mentioned.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this is not an infrequent occurrence to have taxonomic disagreements. Maybe we should look to see how other articles have solved this? I agree that subcategories don't make any sense at all.Mrhorseracer (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the taxoboxes have no lower category than subspecies.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not talking about the taxo boxes, but rather Anaka comment on talking with the article out how we truly don't know where Singers fit--Mrhorseracer (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Anka, in reply to your "why only one" question, for several good reasons. First, It's the scientific community's sythesis of all the various papers and sources. If we didn't do it this way, every time some expert suggested a change or objected to one, we wouldn't know what to put in the taxobox, for example. We don't evalutate the relative merrits of these things, we just report them. If there is a paper that disagrees with MSW3, and it's all well and good that we say so in the appropriate place and way, but in leads and taxoboxes and such where we have to say what an animal is, we have to look to some authority. I didn't understand that at first, but after looking at such problems in hundreds of articles, I came to see that doing it any other way would be impossible. Chrisrus (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)