Talk:New Guinea singing dog/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

He Says He's Leaving

Inugami has stated in the Dingo discussion that he's leaving. Let's get to work. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Bloat

Suggest to all editors that they go back and read (Wp:better) and the style manual. Clearly, this article has gone backwards. Additionally, how about going back and using a standard templateMrhorseracer (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors, We will not work with mrhorseracer. Please read the discussion history before you decide to cooperate with this alias. If mrhorseracer could prove to us that the name mrhorseracer is not an alias for janice koler matznick and prove that mrhorseracer does not show ip addresses from several locations, we might reconsider our position. Since the article is heavily referenced to matznick, it would not be appropriate for her or any of her close associates to edit this article as the resulting article would surely be biased and would also become a promotional device for matznick's publications. In other words, it is not appropriate for a person to edit themselves. It is an out and out conflict of interest. Additionally, mrhorseracer earlier waltzed in here and vandalized the article by completely deleting earlier editors' work and replacing it with her own. She was finally forced out in favor of Mr. Bargho. Now he has left voluntarily and she is attempting to come back and take over again. I don't think so. The combination of conflict of interest and dictatorial editing make acceptance of the reintroduction of this editor impossible. Mrhorseracer has already muddied the waters of this article once and it's not going to happen again. Her edits will be considered vandalism and will be deleted without hesitation. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

Gee, where is that wiki love. Let's stick to fixing the article. My self and other editor will be updating this in the near future. We can fight about it or do it in a collaboration. The fact citation I added were intend to help you understand where the bloat and problems were so you could correct the article. Sorry to hear you are confused on the rules of wiki. OldM, please check out <wp:own>, since you imply you own this article.Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally Mrhorseracer (aka JKoler-Matznick) how about we not go back to the old template? The revised article by Inu is not bloated, it's more complete. There is still plenty of references to your work in this version. You are well represented. Quit trying to dominate an article that you are incapable of having a NPOV on. Right now, you should focus on the NGSD bloodlines as some questions are being raised that we need your help with. Tomcue2 (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree are should not go back to the Jan/Feb article - it clearly was in need of some meat. Some, if not most of the recent content, should stay, assuming it can be verified. It appears your group is dominating the article, not the other way around. I suggestion you keep an open mind (park your egos) and wait and see what changes are done, you actually might agree with them.Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mrhorseracer, You can talk all day and sling mud all you wish, but the facts remain the same. Several editors believe your real name is janice koler-mayznick and that you and several of your colleages are using mrhorseracer as an alias to promote your own work. If you are not janice koler-matznick then you should simply swear you are not she and swear that our suspicions are false. If you come forward and so swear, then her name will be cleared. If you do not come forward honestly then you are guilty of discrediting her. Either way will put an end to your wikipedia editing because in either case you will be branded, so to speak. Are you so foolish as to not realize that other editors cannot see through your elaborate facade? Please recall that it was you who originally came into the article and completely obliterated all the previous editors' work and then replaced it with your own. Is there any reason for us to think your motives have changed? Yes, I have shortcomings as far as editorial abilities are concerned. I'm not ashamed of my shortcomings. I am 64 years old and have only used a computer for 3 years so I'm the first to admit computer shortcomings. However, a decent person will admit to their shortcomings and seek help rather than use others shortcomings as a tool to belittle them. Only a control freak believes they have all the answers and are above reproach because sooner or later someone, someplace will see through them. I am not a controlling person as you have proven yourself to be. Proof of your true intentions are in the article's editing history. I value others opinions unless others prove to me they are unworthy of my trust. You are wasting our time as well as your time if you think you and your ducklings can come in here and once again destroy other editors. Your track record speaks for itself. Inu has provided a solid base for this article and those of us who have entered this arena in an honest and open manner will use that base to make a worthwhile article without your dictatorial help. It seems to me that an article is never completed, but only improved. That being the case, I have no intention of owning the article, but I do intend to keep an eye on it so editors such as yourself will never again move in and take over. You can own the article and inject your biases all you wish after I die, but not until that time. Kindly move on and leave us to our work. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisions Dated 5/27/2010

Other Editors, Today I made several edits as well as entered new information. These are works in progress and will be cited properly as soon as possible. All the information is verifiable and accurate. Please do not just delete it. I am still working on it. Thank you, osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Article and Distribution.

Please show references for all of this information added. --Bee4Real 14:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee4Real (talk • contribs)

I'm working on the references. There is another fact I have only seen published one time. It's from a book by Flamholtz called "A Celebration of Rare Breeds." She actually wrote two volumes. I talked with her a couple of times many years ago and I asked her if what she had written about Singers was fact or fiction? She told me that she wrote what the natives told her and otherwise her writings were based on fact. Some of the things she says is that the first NGSD was taken out of New Guinea is 1897. It was shot up on some mountain and it was black and white. The carcass lay preserved in alcohol for like 11 years of something before anyone bothered to dissect it. As I said, these facts are not included in anyone else's writings so I have to find a copy of the Flamholtz book. My wife and I have both volumes someplace. I just have to find them. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of both volumes. Volume 1 was published in 1986, Volume 2 in 1991. Please cite the pages where this information can be verified. The first reference will be from pages 147-151. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Hearsay does not belong on Wiki only published facts. --Bee4Real 15:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee4Real (talkosm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC) • contribs)

Bee4Real, I corrected the publishing date you'd given for the second volume written by Flamholtz..Since you're such a stickler for accuracy, we knew you'd appreciate the humor or perhapa you made the error on purpose just to see whether we'd catch it?? Either way it's a good joke! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bee4Real, good for you, you're one of the few. The books aren't well know nowadays and that's too bad because they are excellent pieces of work. Just curious, but if you're aware of the books, we were just wondering why you have never used or mentioned it as a source? If you review the history of this article's discussion, you will see not giving page numbers is one of my pet peeves. Why do you feel compelled to issue edit orders to us? You sound like someone who likes to flit around lecturing others as tho the others are perfectly stupid. If you wish to help here, that's great. If you wish to talk down to us then your trouble making will be ignored.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC).

Coaster, Thank you for your contributions to the article. We like the new author. His writings are a sweet combination of European and American thinking. His knowledge of the Shiba Inu are remarkable. A new name breaks up the monotony of seeing the same old reference names over and over, don't you think? That article by Peter Savolainen etal. seems to us to be one of the most, if not the most important piece of research in Singer research history. Looks as if it was a turning point for the NGSD by starting public opinion of them off in a new direction. It is certainly a piece worth studying. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking down to anyone, nor do I lecture people. All I asked of you is that you reference and cite the sources for what you have written and published on the article. I don't think asking for this is out of line? --Bee4Real 16:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee4Real (talk • contribs)

The only other known domestic dog with comparable flexibility is the Norwegian Lundehund.

Could we be overstating our case here? Have we checked all the dogs in the world? I've reason to suspect that there might be others somewhere. How about "Another..." instead of "The only other..."Chrisrus (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've read the Puffin Dog article (very interesting) and I think it may be safer to assume that it's the only other one with such extreme adaptation to climbing, although it's more for rock-climbing than tree climbing, so it might not be exactly the same. But please look at Telomian, which appears to be more of a pet than a camp-follower, and has adapted to climb the ladders their human tribe uses to access their homes. Chrisrus (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I changed the sentence as per your suggestion. I never have cared for the statement at all because I'm not sure that comparing NGSD to other dogs is all that valid unless it's been ascertained through validated research. I know the statement re Lundhunde is referenced, but that doesn't make it valid. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of these dogs are fascinating. I think we should work up a paragra[h re their comparative skills.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference #20

Other Editors and Readers, Those folks familiar with Dr. Wilton's work applaud this study as the "canine research of the century".. A friend of ours has purchased a copy of the article from "Nature" magazine and given it to me. I will be including a citation or two from it in the NGSD article and others of you might want to reference from it as well since the information contained applies to numerous other breeds and landraces. I plan to get to the editing sometime late today or tomorrow and it will be reference #20. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A really nice side effect

Since I've been working on this article I've found out a most interesting and enjoyable thing. By clicking on different names in the "Also see" section, I can go from one article to the next and spend much time doing pleasant reading. What a neat way to link up with related articles! Seems to me that a "Also see" section should be standard fare in all wiki articles. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Such sections are already very, very common in well-written wikipedia articles.The2crowrox (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. Looks as though you're a know-it-all make others look dumb editor who likes to go around looking important. Buzz off. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're so offended by me. I was merely pointing out that your suggestion was a good one; So good in fact, that Wikipedia followed it before you had even suggested it. The2crowrox (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Improper Style

The three sections "Are Singing Dogs considered a breed?", "Are Singing Dogs pariah dogs?" and "Then what are New Guinea Singing Dogs?" do not accord wikipedia's encyclopedic standards of style, and are not properly sourced. In fact, most of the article could use a rewrite and there are at least two incorrectly cited references. If I have the time, I'll try and fix some of the more minor issues, but I think the whole thing could use some attention and re-organization. The2crowrox (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I ended up deleting those sections and reorganizing some of the material in them into a "classification" section. The style was really not encyclopedic, most of the information was unnecessary, with a lot of redundancy and rather poor writing. Although the material I left in *does* refer to sources, it doesn't follow wikipedia's standard format for doing so. Also, ref #7 in the reference list is improperly sourced. Can some editor with more familiarity of the subject tell me what book it's supposed to refer to? A google search of the author didn't show me anything conclusive, but I hate to delete the reference, since it seems like it is valid and could be fixed.The2crowrox (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, The2crowrox, it looks as though you did a pretty good job of screwing up this article. It would sure be nice if editors such as yourself who don't know sickum about a subject would leave them alone. You totally disrupted the meaning of the content and it will now have to be rewritten. reference #7 is Corbett, Laurie "Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals, and Dogs" 2004 The world Conservation Union pg 223. Please stay out of thngs you don't have knowledge about or at least offer help rather than just deleting and making discourteous remarks. There are probably other editors who think your style is less than perfect too, but they may also have the courtesy to present their criticism in a decent manner. How long have you been editing? What degrees in journalism do you have? Have you ever seen a Singing Dog in person? Bite your tongue!!!! Please do not delete other editors work without talking with them first. The section you destroyed is the most complicated and confusing section of the article and since you have no knowledge of Singing Dogs, we would not expect you to understand. The writing took weeks of writing and rewriting in order to perfect the correct terminology and complex meanings and then yoou waltz in like a bull in a china closet and mess up the whole thing in the name of not according and some other crap which btw doesn't make any sense at all.. What is the world does the phrase "do not accord" mean? I think you need to go back to writing school. Kindly stay out of what you do not comprehend!!! Your services are not needed here. Several editors have contibuted to this article and have done quite well without your help.. Upset, you bet I'm upset. I really hate smart alecks who think they know more than anyone else. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thecrowrox, Just a couple more things. In our opinion it's editors such as yourself who hurt wikipedia. You run off editors who know their subjects but may be unfamiliar with wiki rules so pretty soon you have a bunch of format and procedure freaks doing all the work without a clue as to what they're writing about. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My edits were not disruptive, as you suggested on my talk page, and I have certainly attempted to cooperate with the prior editors of this article. As I pointed out above, the material I removed was utterly innappropriate for wikipedia. The information was redundant and unnecessary, improperly sourced, and the style was completely out of place. In fact, I suspect it may have been copied directly from whatever source the material came from, which is of course against wikipedia policy.

There was no "complex meaning" or "correct terminology" in those sections.

And I have attempted to help, not only by cleaning up some of the mess of this article, but also by fixing several basic mistakes regarding citation format.

No offense, but whatever editors have contributed to this article have not done "quite well". Although there is a *great* deal of information in the article, it's orginization is a complete mess and really does need reworked.

I acknowledge that I do not have much familiarity with the subject, and as such, I tried to not remove and material that could be helpful and informative to a reader.

Thank you for providing more information about ref #7.

As I said, this article does have a very large amount of information in it, and hopefully someday it will be presented in a more cogent manner.

I have no intention of making further major edits, but hopefully people will agree that the article looks better and makes more sense now than it did before my edits.

Thank you, The2crowrox (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've added the information on Laurie Corbett's book to the reference list, as well as the Nature article by A. Milton (note that Laurie Corbett's book is now ref #8, thanks to the way wikipedia's ref list handles additions). I see that the article refers to another book by Laurie Corbett in the "Classification" section, "The Dingo in Australia and Asia, (1995}" If someone has more information on that book, please feel free to put it in the article, following this template. Also, if anyone would like to move the information on taxonomical classification that's at the bottom of the "History" section into the "Classification" section, that'd be great. The2crowrox (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Breeding season

There has been a question regarding the length, I assume, of the NGSD breeding season. The cited reference is in German and was added by another editor earlier in the revisions. I will search for a reference in English for this statement. There is also a question in my mind regarding a second heat cycle which occurs if the female isn't bred during the first one and I don't see this mentioned so I will find a reference for the second cycle as well. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Classification

To Whom It May Concern, This entire classification thing has me pulling out my hair. It seems to me that the only two "commensal" dogs are the AU Dingo and the New Guinea Singing Dog. These two then should be termed Canis lupus dingo. The rest of the dingo types all over the world have been associated with man and are therefore pariahs which would make them Canis lupus familiaris dingo. Where is my thinking off on this? Of all the Dingo types, only the AUD and NGSD have evolved free of human influence for thousands of years. What happened prior to thousands of years ago is anybody's guess. Some of us believe that early travelers caught Singers and carried them along on their voyages as food. Others believe they were domesticated by early travelers and carried along as companions. Which is correct?? There exists no real evidence to prove either theory. The fact still remains however, that NGSD and AUD are the only two dingo types that evolved on their own without human influence. As such, they should be classified separately from all of the other dingo types. Does the answer lie in genetic analysis? I think more genetic research is needed before that question can be answered, but Wilton etal has already said that AUD and NGSD are the two most ancient breeds(in the scientific sense)so we should see an immediate separation from other dingo types just from that research. Yet, what in the genetic makeup tested caused Wilton etal to make that statement? NGSD and AUD were transported from somewhere else meaning that the dogs from that particular someplace else are more ancient than the AUD or NGSD. So the question is not concerning how ancient they are, but rather, how well they have preserved the original genes that they started with thousands of years ago. We're thinking UAD and NGSD have evolved solely by natural influences and have not been altered by man at all so they constitute a whole separate class because they are as they were and have not been altered by man. Does my logic make sense? osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reproduction

"Their breeding season generally starts in August and ends during December". Really? In New Guinea the breeding season starts in mid-spring and ends at the height of summer, while in Germany it starts in late summer and ends in mid-winter? I find that extremely hard to believe. This would make it the only organism in the world that has a cycle based on calendar dates rather than day length, temperature or other biologically detectable stimuli.111.220.230.201 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What can I tell you? Our NGSD breeding season in Kansas, USA is as stated. It starts in August and ends in December. Many times if the female isn't bred during the first cycle, she will come back in heat 2-3 months later. Additionally, Singing Dogs are the only dogs we've seen who will tie in times of the year when the female isn't even in heat. We call it "sex for fun". These are intelligent dogs. Sorry, old bud. That's the truth of it. Rewrite the book to make it accurate.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping it clean

I just want to thank those editors who keep a watchful eye on articles and who undo the vandalism etc that mars wiki articles' appearances. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

The lead should include a image, such as File:New Guinea Singing Dog profile.jpg, to display the whole profile of the animal, the example image is of greater quality, it gives a natural look of the animal - not a pet look. The two current images example the different colours of the dog's coat; although this is appropriate, I believe, it should not be included in the lead, the fur section could benefit from this. Other than this the images need to more organised - although placed in the relevant sections, some sandwich such sections' text. --George2001^hi 11:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

George, I understand about the lead photo, but let me look a bit. The one you referenced is a poor example of a Singing Dog plus the subject is older than what would be considered ideal. Lets go for a younger one. We have several quality males. I'll see if we can get a good side shot of one of them. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-profit organizations dedicated to the preservation of NGSD

Editors, I have corrected one edit regarding organizations that are legally registered as non-profit organizations dedicated to the preservation and conservation of NGSD. There is only one legal, not-for-profit entity, and that is the New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society. There is another "dog club" that is gearing up to become a legal entity, but at this point in time the group cannot yet be considered a legal non-profit organization. Additionally, there may be others doing the same thing, so as we learn that these organiations have attained non-profit status, we will enter them into the text. Until then, we must stay factual. I also see the editor added back in the freewebs link.. For my part I see no harm in this action, but if any editors disagree , then by all means they should voice their opinion. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree oldsingerman. Don't let your bias get in your way. You were okay with the page as it was before you left the NGSDI. Now that you have chosen another path, you suddenly see a problem with a page that you basically created. I have removed the non-profit status (for now anyway) but have re-listed your former organization as being involved in NGSD Conservation. Tomcue2 (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTCTom,

Whatever. Think as you wish. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fellow wiki editors, There is an underlying fist fight going on in the Singing Dog world that has caused my wife and I tremendous distress and pain. From our point of view this arguement has now begun to spill over into wikipedia. We won't allow that to happen because we appreciate all of your efforts and refuse to get into a fight on wiki. Therefore, we are hereby withdrawing from this article as well all other articles on wiki. In other words, we won't be posting to wiki in any manner any more. I would erase the article, but for what good purpose? Neither Grw+70D5824 or Tomcue2 have the knowledge or experience with Singing Dogs needed to rewrite the article, but maybe if I leave it, they can learn how to make changes and edit. Both editors have a good way with words and they are smart, so I think they can make changes and reword the article to fit themselves and claim it for their own quite easily. Again, thank you for all the help and encouragement you have given me in the past. Any time any of you wish to reach us, you may email me privately. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations checked

http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/actionplans/canids.pdf

On page 34 of Canids, one of the sources cited in this article Corbett says this:

“New Guinea singing dog Preliminary sequencing studies showed that the New Guinea singing dog has mtDNA sequences identical to the dingo (Canis lupus dingo), which is classified within a clade of dog sequences distinct from grey wolves (Vilà et al. 1997; Wayne et al. 1997; Leonard et al. 2002). Contrary to one report (Koler-Matznick et al. 2003), sequencing studies rule out an ancestry with dholes and the African wild dog, and clearly assign it to the domestic dog, which is sister to the grey wolf (Vilà et al. 1997; Wayne et al. 1997; Leonard et al. 2002). Given the current evidence, we feel there is little justification for assigning specific or subspecific status.

If we use this book to cite this article, this should be the section cited and the statements in the article should say basically the same thing: that the Koler-Matznick idea that this is something other than a particular type of domestic dog is just an interesting fact about the way it used to be seen, but one which no longer is believable. Chrisrus (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, Agreed. Can you make it so? This is worthy of inclusion in the article. oldsingerman20..

Chrisrus, On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that Singing Dogs are a form of domestic dog. It has been proven through Wilton dna studies that they are a type of dingo and more than closely related to the AU Dingo. So what's the point here? Are we then once again trying to relegate Singing Dogs to a domestic dog status and in so doing then are we relegating all Dingoes to the same domestic dog status? So then are we saying that domestic dog covers all canines up to wolves and saying that every canine below wolves has been domesticated by man even though there is no evidence to prove it. Additionally, it is well known that AU Dingo and NGSD dna differ significantly from domestic dog dna, so what's the use of pursueing this? If NGSD are a form of domestic dog then why does their dna differ significantly from domestic dogs? It really doesn't make any logical sense to say NGSD or Au Dingos are domestic dogs when their dna is far different from domestic dogs. Wilton's dna study was quite well done and was quite definitive. We are sending suspected Singer dna samples to him nowadays and they are returned with definitive results. Additionally, there are more studies in the offing so going backwards on this is not the thing to do, or so it seems to me. See my point?? osm20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the finding's wording is being misinterpretted. Yes, they are part of "domestic dog" but dna wise they are not and therefore, are not a form of domestic dog. The powers needed a place to put NGSD so they settled on "domestic dog" and now they have been proven wrong but have not changed anything in the toxonomic scale. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wilton also says that they are domestic dogs. According to the citations about that in the article, Wilton says that dingoes are ancient domestic dogs. He doesn't show any doubt that I can see that they are dogs. In fact, he calls them dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but wait.

The Matznick study has been shown to be invalid. Does an invalid study need to be mentioned in this article?

The Corbett book is not definitve. It leaves a person up in the air regarding NGSD origin.

Wilton calls NGSD a "breed". As I've said before NGSD is scientifically a breed of dog. That's fine for the times when one scientist is talking to other scientists, but when a scientist uses that term for lierature going to the general public, then it's a misnomer. Instantly, Joe Brown and Mary Smith think, "Oh hey, NGSD is a breed of dogs just like Dachshunds or Irish Setters or Pugs.

Well, of course, that's a misinterpretation.

Would be better to to call NGSD a landrace, although that's not totally accurate either?

Perhaps they should be termed simply a "race".

First you had the wolf.

Then what came next???

Do scientists know what came next? Did NGSD come right after the wolf?

Wilton says NGSD and AU Dingo came next.

He and his colleages research indicate that NGSD and AU Dingo are more closely related to the wolf than any other canine. To me, saying that NGSD and AU Dingo are more closely related to wolf than any other canine is also saying that AU Dingo and NGSD were the very next evolution from wolf.

He is saying that NGSD and AU Dingo are just one step down from wolf.

Then----that step in evolutionary history was frozen in place by isolation from all outside influence until modern man appeared on the scene in AU and NG.

That's a mouthful and very important because suddenly we all realize we are not just dealing with a common breed of dog.

We are dealing with what scientists now believe to be "the most ancient breed of dog that is more closely related to the wolf than any other breed."

So if NGSD are to be written up as a breed of dog, then let's make sure people understand that they're not just a breed of dog. They are now recognized as the "oldest" breed of dog.

NGSD and AU Dingo DNA is clearly and nearly identical.

I have seen, met, touched, petted, observed, an Alpine Dingo who so closely resembles an NGSD that a person, even with trained eyes, has to really take a hard look at her to differentiate her from a NGSD. Yes, there are certain visual differences, but a person seeing one of the Alpines like this in the field, a distance away, and perhaps only seeing a fleeting glance, a side view or a view from the rear, would not be able to differiate what they see as either an Alpine Dingo or a NGSD.

Yes, NGSD is now considered a dog.

Yes, NGSD is a form of domestic dog.

Yes, NGSD is one of the "ancient" forms of domestic dog.

Yes, NGSD is on the same level as AU Dingo and in fact, no one has yet decided which evolved first, AU Dingo or NGSD.

Yes, they were probably transported either to AU or New Guinea by ancient travelers.

Yes, they are unique in that where they evolved in AU and in NG they were isolated from all other forms of canines for thousands of years.

Yes, scientists recognize this difference and that is why they are classified as canis lupus dingo. Scientists feel they(NGSD and AU Dingo) are the link between wolf and and "modern" domestic dog. Therfore, AU Dingo and NGSD have a nitch of their own in the evolutionary tree which is called "dingo".

The evolutionary process assigned to "other domestic dogs" did not affect AU Dingo or NGSD since their isolation was complete and uninterrupted until humans introduced "modern domestic dogs" into AU Dingo and NGSD environments and hence began the "watering down" process called "hybridization" which we are seeing today. So in summary, are NGSD and AU Dingo forms of domestic dog?

Yes, they are, but they are the closest breeds(scientific use of the word)to wolf in existence today.

Their DNA is easily identified and different from, modern domestic breeds. Personally, we have no problem calling NGSD and/or AU Dingo "breeds of dog", but let us be sure to explain that Dingo DNA is "not the same" as modern domestic breeds.

When DNA samples are sent to Dr. Wilton, he and his colleagues have no problem identifying either AU Dingo or NGSD. They are able to isolate "Village Dogs" from NGSD and/or AU Dingo. There is, plain and simple, a marked and identifiable difference between AU Dingo/NGSD and modern domestic breeds of dog.

It must be made clear here that NGSD and AU Dingo are a different limb of the evolutionary tree from what the public considers as "domestic dog".

The "Village Dogs of New Guinea" and other AU Dingo and NGSD crosses, mixes, and hybrids are the next step down in the evoutionary process from Dingo to modern domestic.

In other words, we as human beings living nowadays, are seeing, actually observing in real life, two different steps in the evolutionary process.

On the one hand we see "pure" AU Dingo and NGSD whose members have existed for thousands of years as they are today, and then we are also seeing the next evolutionary step down called AU Dingo Hybrid and New Guiea Singing Dog Hybrid.

We are fortunate to be able to see these two evolutionary steps in real life happening before our very eyes. Or perhaps we are unfortunate. Who's to say? It is the way the world works.

The question is whether we should try to preserve "pure" members of the AU Dingo and NGSD race? Or should we allow their complete assimilation into "modern breeds of dog"?

If a person is a "conservator" they believe NGSD and AU Dingo should be preserved in their natural and unaltered state.

There is another school of thought that embraces the idea that AU Dingo and NGSD should be altered, selectively bred, in order to eliminate "undesireable" traits.

At any rate, NGSD are condidered Canis lupus dingo by most people.

Lastly, why are NGSD and AU Dingoes not considered another form of wolf? Why are they considered dog?

These are my thoughts on this. oldsingerman20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

About the Maznik study, no, you're right, there is no real need for it as far as statements about what they are, because those conclusions have not been agreed with. On the other hand, it could be used if one needed simple descriptions or other data as to the skull shape and so on. I don't think anyone disputes those facts, just the conclusion that she drew from the facts. Also, further down there is a section in which we talk about the history of thought on the subject. It could be used to footnote statements about important events in the 1950s, and the publishing of these papers was an historically important events in the history of the animals. But they should not be used to contradict statements in the lead and such about what the animal is.

About "the Corbett book", I don't know which you refer to, but the book called "Canids" is written by a bunch of differnet people, although it's true he was asked by that organization to write the section on the Dingo, I don't know if he wrote that bit about the NGSD, but it is written in the third person singuar, as if the author were speaking for the entire organization that they were pretty much united in their conclusion that her suggestion that it was something other than a kind of domestic dog had been pretty much looked into and not agreed with.

More replies later....Chrisrus (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Next, what's wrong with the term landrace? It seems perfect to me. However, at least since they've been in captivity, and maybe much longer, they have, indeed, been bred. Plus, as I recall at least one kennel club has officially given them that designation. I don't see what's wrong with calling them a breed. Although they are a type of dog, there is a special, technical meaning of the term dog type, but according to that article, as I recall, people do still use that term loosely. Then there's always "kind", "variety", and "sort" of dog, none of which as far as I know have been spoken for.

Now, as to the bit about "first came the wolf, then what next" idea, I've only got with me Corbett's book "The Dingo in Australia and Asia". Do you have that book, too? I think you'd like it. It says that according to the fossil record it seems that the first dingoes evolved from southern wolves, either C.l. arabs or palpides or a close relative, somewhere in pennisular southeast Asia centering around present-day Thailand, and that the process from wolf to dog was a process of domestication, hence the name "domestic dog" even if they later go feral or wild. He also says that if it happened there, it could have happened elsewhere by the same process, maybe more than twice, so similarities between the southeast Asian origin dogs and western Asian origin dogs such as the Canaan Dog may have evolved separately. But he phrases all that as just a possibility in that book, but my copy is pretty old and this may have been more accepted.

Anyway, he says that there were probably many peoples involved in the evolution of the dingo, but none was more important than the austronesian people who, despite their confusing name are totally separate from the native Australian people, who had been in Australia for a very long time, even before the Austronesians appeared with their dingoes. Austronesian peoples are some of the most common peoples in the world to this day because of the massive population of Indonesia mostly, who are mostly Astronesians and their languages belong to that family of languages. But also they are the Philipinoes and many other peoples from the native, non-Chinese people of Taiwan, some of whom still live there on reservations I gather, and all the way over to Madagascar, which wasn't populated from Africa but rather during the Austronesian diaspora which although it was a prehistoric event was still much more recent. I gather that modern Malagassy people are still Astronesian but that they seem to have some ancestors from the continent. Anyway, everywhere these people went they brought their dingoes with them, and even in places where they didn't leave settle but just traded or landed or maybe even got shipwrecked offshore of, they brought dingoes with them and that includes Australia, where despite what most scientists had assumed and most people seem to still believe today, Australian people had been living without dogs for many thousands of years before that.

As far as New Guinea goes, the ancestors of the NGSD, Corbett says, arrived with Austronesian people about two thousand years ago on the south coast, but thinks that what he calls "the highland dog" (although he confusingly to me seems to lump lowland and highland New Guinea dingoes together elsewhere) doesn't seem to have arrived there until about one thousand years ago. At this point, Corbett falls silent on the subject of the New Guinea Singing Dog.

I'm figuring that some of the lowland "var. papauensis" dingoes must have wandered off from the southern coast areas somehow, maybe following different peoples, and then somehow got past the maze of rock walls and valleys and impenitrable forests and finally arrived at the highlands to find an entirely different group of ancient people living there. This would have been very difficult and taken a very long time because even though it seems like not too far away on the map from what I understand concidering the terrain it might as well have been a world away. Anyway, from reports I have read about them in captivity, they seem to act much more like a wild animal than most dogs, so it seem as if they must have had to adapt quickly to life without following people or being able to trust them not to be hostile or to have enough scraps to survive off, as seems to have happened in Australia. So there were some factors that were the same in Australia and New Guinea and that would explain why they are so close in so many ways. But of course the prey was very different and so were other things, which would explain the differences between the two, plus having come from slightly different stocks in the first place. But again, this is my personal guess. My guess is if you looked for signs back from a domesticated state for signs of reverting to life as a wild animal, you'd find more in the highland dogs than in the lowland dogs, but not so much as in Australia. You are right, more work needs to be done in this area, and there is good reason to think we'll never know the whole story.

But anyway, neither New Guinea nor Australia seem to have been the first places dingoes arrived, they arrived there comparatively late. Obviously they would have had to come from elsewhere, they couldn't have evolved there, they clearly evolved somewhere in Asia. My guess is, if Wilton includes DNA from Thai dingoes in his next study, he will find them to be older, because the other way around doesn't make sense, although I wonder if the Thai dingo gene pool is still as pure as it was when Corbett did his study of Thai dingoes in the 1990s. He talks about it in the book and the differeneces between Thai and Australian dingoes. So yes, there's more to be learned as there still are many unknowns, but there doesn't seem to be nearly as much mystery about the NGSD as there had been, and the idea that they had been living in New Guinea for anything close to the amount of time that humans have doesn't make sense with any evidence I have seen. So it's probably not the NGSD that's so close to the wolves, but Canis lupus dingo in general as opposed to maybe familiaris dogs, who seem more distant from the southern wolves. But to my undersanding, further distance from wolves would make the dog older, not more recently evolved. For example, Huskies and such can look like they evolved from wolves just yesterday, so to speak, but something like a Chinese Crested dog looks like it hasn't seen the wild in a very, very long time. What do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Using the word "landrace" seems perfectly acceptable. I balk at using it simply because in my mind, the term applies more to domestic livestock, even plants, more so than it applies to canidae.

I think you're absolutely correct regarding the Thai Dingo and its relationship to New Guinea Dingoes and AU Dingoes.

One thing: Dr. Wilton has said that from the DNA work they've performed, now get this, all of the Dingoes in Australia and New Guinea probably evolved from one pregnant bitch. That's quite a statement, isn't it?

Think of the ramifications of that statement!

As to Highland and Lowland Singers, I know we've discussed this before, but my wife and I definitely believe there were two different groups. Even nowadays, there are differences in size, height etc. in different bloodlines. There are, of course, other reasons for the size/build/height variation, but we've seen some marked differences in different bloodlines in our observations down through the years..

Nowadays the bloodlines for the most part are so interbred(notice I did not say inbred), that the highland and lowland genes are all mixed up. That means that even in a given litter you may have quite a bit of size and conformity variation.

We believe that the genes for highland and lowland Singers still exist in the living specimens.

The one good thing we have always admired about NGSD breeders has been that they have not selectively bred except for genetic diversity.

They have never bred for temprament, or color, or aspects of size or conformity and so therefore have "preserved what they had at hand."

In the wild, the combination of mans' encroachment on their territories as well as strength and stamina in regard to survival of the fittest had to have influenced the intergration of lowland and highland Singers.

I will say this, NGSD in the wild are not and we believe have never been, scavengers. In the wild they shun contact with humans. Heck, they're smarter than a lot of people so why would they want anything to do with humans?? Humans have been and still are, their enemies.

A Singing Dog learns with one experience and that experience is passed on to it's offspring at given points in time.

Hardly anyone has see a wild Singer during the last 30 plus years. Natives say they hear dogs howling. Singer senses are fine tuned and they use those keen senses to avoid their enemy who is called "man".

We agree with you that more DNA testing is needed on other types of dingo, but we were so happy to see the Wilton study we about couldn't see straight. We'd been wating on it for 20 years.

You say Singing Dogs seem to act more like wild animals than most dogs. Yes, well that's rather an understatement in a way.

They are non-aggressive but they are shy so I'd guess that if a person placed Singers in a large acreage with some cover, the caretaker would hardly ever see them. Our Singers become more active just before dawn and right after dusk and they keep still during the daylight hours unless they're disturbed. Our Singers are more active at night. We know this is true because there is consistant evidence of night time activity.

Anytime I go out to check on them late at night I find at least part of them wide awake and alert.

Singers don't miss a trick. They are quite keem.

That's the "wild" in them, if you will. I wanted to clarify use of the word "wild" because to many people the word "wild" is a bad thing and carries negative connotations. I have handled many, many Singers during the last 22 years and the only time I was bitten was when I stupidly picked up an old injured dog. Actually I was dumb enough to pick him up twice and got bit both times.

If there is such a thing as an aggressive Singer then that Singer is not typical of the "breed". An aggressive Singer would be one brick short of a load. Extremely unusual. I think that a Singer could be made to be mean through mistreatment and/or abuse. They are fully capable of defending themselves and inflicting severe damage to a rival.

How else could they have survived for several thousand years?

Your logic prevails regarding the Matznick reference. Let's kept it in mind.

osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Tone

This is a great article, I am however concerned about the tone of the first paragraph of the section "Relationship with humans" which is non-encyclopaedic and shout "copyvio". The section "Origin and taxonomic status" gets rather mixed up, it looks like the separate species argument need ascribing to someone. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

Rich, Thank you for your kind compliments. Several people have spent considerable time with the article and we aren't finished by any means. I don't understand what you mean when you say, "copuvio". Please explain. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the error. It is supposed to read, What is meant by the term "copyvio?" Ah, I see now, copyright violations. How so? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Curiosity

Earlier in discussion on this page I stated that due to their shy nature, if Singing Dogs were placed in a large acreage, the caretaker might never seen them. I think I was grossly mistaken. We whelped puppies this year. It had been 9 years since our last litter. I had forgotten how Singer puppies act. They have to be the most curious animals! Their senses are so keen! I think that if Singers were placed in a large acreage and the caretaker set him/her self down somewhere in that acreage and spread meat scent about, he/she would have young and maybe even adult Singers checking on him/her up front and personal. They are shy, yes. They are jumpy, yes. But they are also very, very curious. Fasinating creatures. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

General Comments

New photos will soon be available for making changes if/as needed. A professional photographer recently volunteered his services for a photo session. He took hundreds of snaps of 6 of our Singers so we are excited to see what he was able to capture. We have asked several owners for permission to use their pictures and I think all but one has agreed. There is generally excellent cooperation amoung owners. Just a quick update. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo deletion

Fellow editors, I want to take this opportunity to make it perfectly clear and on the record, that I personally do not believe in using photos owned by other people without their permission. For that reason, I removed all the non-permission photos yesterday both from the NGSD article as well as from the NGSD catogory of wikimedia. Another person, by the handle of tomcue2, a person who was at one time associated with NGSD on wikipedia, logged in and added back most of the non-permission photos including my own. He also added two back into the NGSD article. Although I have no qualms about him adding his own work, I do have reservations about him adding back images that he does not own nor has permission to use. I'm not going to get into a fistfight over this, but I do want it on record that I am opposed to his use of images without the owners' consent. Even if using others' images on wiki is technically legal without owner permission, it is none-the-less only common courtesy to gain owner permission. Would those of you with extensive wiki experience please advise me if you feel further action against use of these photos seems warranted?osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Be it Wiki or any other site that has photographs the person who placed them there would be responsible for any violations. The great thing about Wiki Commons is that it keeps a record of who actually posts the photos. In the future please make it a point to only delete or remove your own photos and/or photos you have permissions on. I myself would never remove any photos that you or anyone else uploaded. Kindly grant others that same courtesy by not removing other peoples contributions. Thanks in advance for respecting others that contribute to the NGSD page. Tomcue2 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Images are no different than text in that they should be edited when editing is warranted. The fact that you say you would not remove others' photos has yet to be proven Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder. Any editor, including myself, has the right and obligation to remove or replace inferior photos, so don't think for one minute that your photos or my photos or anyone else's photos are immune to deletion. As for responsibility, I have seen how you lift others' photos, so please don't lecture me as to responsibilities. My issue with you is that you upload other peoples' images under your name. In my opinion, I think the original owner/photographer should be given credit rather than claiming it as your own work.. Where I come from taking others' property and then claiming it as your own is called theft. If you would like to be considered a thief, then continue using other peoples' photos and listing them under your name, or, if you want to be considered an honest contributor you will edit the pictures you have falsely claimed and enter the proper owner's identity. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You stated that you were not going to bicker but you once again have removed a photo I placed on the page. You have at least a dozen photos of your own Singers at you facility on the page. Kindly swap out your own photos and leave those that I have placed there be unless we discuss and agree that a better photo is available. Your statement of this photo or that photo being inferior is totally subjective and seeing that you have a dozen or more of your own photos on the page it appears that your judgement may be tainted. I have re-inserted the photo of the Singer that is singing. Tomcue2 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Check your dates. I removed Singer Singing on October first. You simply missed putting it back in the article when you reinstated the other two. Personally I have nothing against the photo. It's a good example of a Singer howling. You, just like anyone else is welcome to put on pictures. As I said earlier, my complaint with you is that you claim others work as your own. My judgement is not tainted. I simply have 27 Singers to choose from to take photos as well as 23 years of conserving them whereas you have one single Singing Dog to photograph and have 3-4 years of minimal experience. You have never whelped out a litter let alone raised any puppies so you have to depend on other people's experience and images in order to make yourself appear to be an expert. I have asked Singer owners in four internet discussion groups for photos and they are sending them. If you notice, I added a few other owners' photos today and I also gave them credit and didn't just steal their images. As far as discussing anything with you, we had our last and final discussion today and there won't be another one, not here, on the phone, in a discussion group. No place. I washed my hands of you a long time ago. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fyi, every photo that is in Commons was done so after permissions were given by the photo taker and they did not request nor demand that credit be given. Your concerns are unwarrented not to mention a waste of time but if you need contact names and addresses I will be glad to provide them to you so you can investigate. Some folks just want to help the Singer cause without stipulation or special recognition. I have a bunch more if needed but again would never even think of replacing any that you have placed on the page without first asking because I have respect for you and what you have done both here and over the years for Singers. Hopefully we are now done with this chat. Tomcue2 (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

sin-man cleanup deletion

I don't know who sin-man is and don't care. This business of hitting on an article with some sort of tag is irresponsible. If sin-man or anyone else wants to "cleanup" this or any other article then they should make "specific and constructive" changes or add additional informatiopn to articles, not some generalized crap tag that is meaningless and has negative connotations. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is in serious need of work

This page is entirely unencyclopedic. It looks like something you'd see on a dog breeding page or such. It is full of overly emotive and non-objective statements, eg: 'A beautiful 11 month old female Singing Dog'

Frankly, this page could do with being wiped and rewritten. As such, I am tagging this page NPOV, unless I can find something more fitting 203.79.120.182 (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have concerns then you should make appropriate changes, not just blow hot air. Constructive contributions are always welcome. Unfounded generalized criticism is a waste of editor's time and is basically rude.. I have copied the article to a flashdrive so if you want to wipe it and rewrite it I will relieve wikipedia of this horrible piece and use it elsewhere, Please feel free and then it'll be our turn to criticise. Since you feel so strongly about this article's poor quality we'd like to see your pen at work. As for using the word beautiful as part of the caption, we couldn't think of a better descriptive word for one of the most beautiful Singing Dogs ever produced. If you find the word offensive, we can do without it and not lose any sleep over it. Best wishes and happy editing. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing

A big thank you to the last two editors who contributed to the article. I hadn't even seen the vandalism and the reference corrections are wonderful. The taxonbox is in agreement with most Singer people, especially those who have been associated with Singers for a long time. Again, thank you for your contributions. It's good to see new editing bloodlines. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see 203.79.120.182 is either a common vandal or a very immature troublemaker. In either case let's be wary of his/her presence. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox

My thanks to mojoworker for adding the taxobox. No reflection on mojoworker, the photo was poor. The one I added isn't much better. I will search for a better profile shot. I'd like to see the head more clearly? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to replace the taxobox with a dogbox, but as I've been complaining for some time, all dogboxes come with the taxon Canis lupus familaris built in, as if dingoes weren't also dogs. So we need to get that fixed. But this taxobox is out of line with the whole system of articles, Canis lupus, Subspecies of Canis lupus, Domestic Dog, Canis lupus dingo, Canis, not to mention such standard Wikipedia citations as MSW3, and Canids, p. 20. So as soon as we fix the problem with the Dogbox not allowing for anything but "familiaris", we'll replace the taxobox with a dogbox. Chrisrus (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is wrong with the taxobox? It can be edited. Why do you want a dogbox? AU Dingo and NGSD are blood brothers and Dingo doesn't have a dogbox, does it? NGSD is not a breed of dog. I should think dogboxes are for breeds of domestic dogs, not for dingoes. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is, it's not a valid taxon. Actually, Australian Dingo shouldn't have one either, because it's not the only Canis lupus dingo. But that's another matter and didn't just happen the other day. Dogboxes are for breeds, yes, but they're also used for distinctive naturally selected landraces of dogs that belong to certain geographical areas, especially when, as is the case with Canaan Dogs, Carolina Dogs, NGSDs, and so on, they have been kept and bred in captivity for a long time. Chrisrus (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NGSD have been bred in captivity for about 50 years. Is 50 years considered a long time. NGSD are the same as AU Dingoes in many, many ways. If people are thinking that the natives of NG bred NGSD, that isn't the case. In some minor ways yes, but not as we think of as "breeding". They did not domesticate them or breed them to bring forth specific traits. It was more like a symbionic relationship. "You know, I'll catch some game for you if you throw me a piece of it for supper." In some cases NGSD were owned, but it was the exception rather than the rule. Some tribes caught and ate NGSD. That's not breeding them. They caught them from the wild. They didn't raise them as meat dogs. The only dingo NGSD can really be compared to is the AU Dingo.. What's good for the AU Dingo is good for the NGSD. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of uncertainty about what is the correct taxon, so I re-enabled the Taxobox classification_status parameter and set it to "unresolved". I also tried another photo that was on commons that I cropped; see if you like that one better. Note that the reference in the Taxobox (The New Guinea singing dog: its status and scientific importance published in Australian Mammalogy, 2007) leads with "Time is running out for the opportunity to study the New Guinea singing dog (Canis hallstromi Troughton 1957) to determine if they are a unique taxon." It also mentions "In addition to C. hallstromi and C. familiaris, singing dogs have been called C. familiaris hallstromi (Manwell and Baker 1983), C. lupus f. familiaris (Voth 1988), and C. lupus dingo (Brisbin et al. 1994)." and "Simonsen (1977), in an electrophoretic molecular study, found that the singing dog had two of 18 blood enzymes that differed from the type shared by C. dingo, C. familiaris, and C. lupus, but co-occurred in C. latrans and red fox (Vulpes vulpes)." The paper concludes with "We are convinced the answer is that the singing dog, and pure C. dingo, are incipient sibling taxa, and their order of derivation will likely be resolved by further research. Whenever and wherever the singing dog originated, today there can be no doubt that it is at minimum an evolutionarily significant unit" and also mentions "Therefore, for conservation purposes, the wild singing dog should be considered a unique taxon until the contrary is clearly demonstrated". Mojoworker (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, There is no valid taxon for Singing Dogs. As Mojoworker says, it is unresolved. BTW, thanks for the new photo in the box. It's of an older Singer probably taken at a zoo. It'll work just fine even down to the unshed fur on it's right hip. Anyway, until the scientific world decides it's taxonomic fate, is in limbo. However, the genetic evidence by Wilton etal. is quite conclusive and he states that there is no doubt that AU Dingo and NGSD are genetically nearly identical and that both wild populations probably evolved from a single pregnant femmale. He used AU Dingo dna to verify NGSD purity. That's how close they are to one another. So for my part, the Hallstromi bit doesn't bother me, It could also pass as Canis lupus dingo but never anything with familairis in it. The word "unresolved" is an excellent addition and speaks to the point in a clear manner. If you guys don't like Hallstromi then change the taxobox to Canis lupus dingo. No one should care as there's not consenus on it anyway so there's no pat answer. I had never added a taxobox because I was unknowing about how to edit them, duh! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that only papers specifically about the NGSD have any doubt that the taxon is C.l.dingo var. halstromi anymore. If the topic is Canidae, they don't show up as a separate species or subspecies. Nor if the topic is the genus Canis proper. When they talk about Subspecies of Canis lupus, it doesn't get mentioned except as a "synonym". Look on lists of mammals of the world, and it's not there. When the big world association of mammology or whatever it is that publishes MSW3 met last time and read all the papers and elected one of their own to authorize their findings with notes on any iffy bits or some such they didn't do anything with "halstromi" but leave it as a taxonomic synonym of Canis lupus dingo, which they noted is only provisionally separate from the domestic dog clade anyway, so if it keeps going in that direction the next step will be to unite the two dog taxa, not to further add to it. And besides, wasn't it you who showed me a recent paper by Janis whatshername that listed "C.l.d. var H" right at the top with no iffinesses? These kinds of holdouts happen every so often, but unless there's some overwhelming reason we go with MSW3 and wait for MSW4 for extant mammals at least in terms of taxoboxes. You can have the taxonomy section to discuss all that and even refer to it in the lead. But understand why we must go with the flow on taxoboxes because if not, we'd have chaos and thrashing in the whole tree system everytime someone wrote a paper suggesting some change. Chrisrus (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the photo is from the Tautphaus Park Zoo in Idaho Falls, ID. Mojoworker (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dogbox

Here's a dogbox I swiped from another article. Let's see if we can fix the "familiaris only" problem:

New Guinea Singing Dog
Origin	New Guinea
Dog (domestic dog)

So are you saying the taxobox should be converted to Canis lupus dingo? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomic status

I think we have to go and should follow MSW3. They call new Guinea Singing Dogs, New Guinea Dingoes and have them as Canis lupus dingo. BTW they also have AU Dingo the same way. So I guess Dr. Wilton's genetic results have paid off and the taxonomoc people have finally put them together. Mojoworker, would it be possible for you to edit the taxobox to reflect C.l.d.? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, a question. I think people are going to refer to New Guinea Singing Dogs more and more as New Guinea Dingoes. How do we cross reference the two so that someone typing in New Guinea Dingo will find the New Guinea Singing Dog article? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Kindly consider either removing the taxobox or if it can be edited change the name to "canis lupus dingo". The most speces ID systems including ISIS are still incorrectly listing the NGSD as hallstromi or the hallstrom dog. The NGSD has been reclassified as a dingo and wiki itself has reference to this. Singers are today a subspecies of the dingo. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus Tomcue2 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. Let me know if something looks wrong. I copied the Trinomial Authority from Dingo, but Meyer, 1793 doesn't seem right. I'll look over it again later today. Anyone know the conservation status? Mojoworker (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I would like to say that unfinished business includes removing taxoboxes from this article and from Australian Dingo and leaving it at Canis lupus dingo, only, because varieties of a subspecies don't get taxoboxes. If they did, Beagle would have a Canis lupus familiaris taxobox. The problem is, our only dogbox is familiaris, only, and there is no dogbox for dogs like the Telomian and others that experts concider not "familiaris" dogs but "C.l.dingo" dogs. I just don't know how to make a new box or to change the boxes we have to allow for the fact that not all dogs are "familiaris". Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there must be a reason for the box being only for familiaris. Mojoworker, thank you for changing the taxobox. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know Chrisrus the NGSD was also at one time in the familiaris family. They were reclassified in the 70's to Dingo which nearly ended their existence in captivity in north America. We can actually thank osm20 along with a handful of folks for preventing that from happening. Although the NGSD is one of 10 variations of CLD's (see Wilson Reeder 3rd edition) the dna studies being done these days use both the AU and the PNG version (NGSD) of Dingo for their dna studies and testing. It is now widely believed that the two (AU Dingo & NGSD) were at one time (before the end of the ice age) the same being. Tomcue2 (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I created New Guinea Dingo that redirects to this article. I also created this test version of Infobox dog breed with an additional "dingo" parameter (use dingo=true or dingo=yes), which switches between familiaris and dingo following the Canis lupus. See Template:Infobox dog breed/testcases. Any thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I reworked the lead a little bit. Could someone add something to the lead about why it's called a "Singing Dog"? It seems like an obvious first question for someone looking it up on Wikipedia. Mojoworker (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mojo, This box is a great step in the right direction. As for the inert information, "traits" is useful and appropriate. "Standards" needs to be deleted since we are talking about a wild animal, not a domestic breed of dog. Somehow it needs to be made perfectly clear the NGD is classified as C.l.d. and has not a thing to do with domestic dog. The last genetic study was perfectly clear that NGSD and AUD are in a class by themselves removed from domestic dog. Also, the latest version of theory based on genetic findings indicated NGSD and AUD came from China, not other parts of Asia as earlier thought. Thank you for redirecting NGD to NGSD. If "description" was added to the box would we then also have it in the text?osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just explain in the text that it's a "domestic dog" gone wild, just like the Aus dingo? They are decended from domesticated dogs, so they belong to the same "domestic dog" clade that "familiaris" dogs belong to, a grouping of subspecies of Canis lupus, and the name of that clade is "domestic dog" but they'd gone feral so long ago they became wild like the Aus Dingo. We can't change the situation, but if we worry that it'll be misunderstood we make sure they understand by explaining. Chrisrus (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I am so dumb on some of these things. Please give me a link I can go to and read all about the clades and so on that you're talking about. Are you telling me that the fools have canis lupus under domestic dog? Where do you find that information? Also, explaining in the text is what I suggested awhile ago. That bit in the Au Dingo article is just about excellent. Can we use it without being thieves since AUD & NGSD are blood brothers. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "dingo" paramater I added only toggles between familiaris and dingo. I can see if I could also use it to inhibit the "Standards" section from being displayed, but I don't want to break the many dog articles currently using the template. The documentation for the template is here: Template:Infobox dog breed/doc. Note that there are parameters in the standards section for "notrecognized" and "extinct" — perhaps we could add one for "wild". Or then again, maybe create a new "Infobox dingo" for NGSD, AU Dingo, Telomian, etc. Also note that Mammal Species of the World, Wilson Reeder 3rd edition is now 8 years old — do they keep the database updated between editions? Has there been new research since then in some of the newer papers? OSM, I'm confused too. How is Canis lupus lupus (wolf) different from Canis lupus? Isn't it the case that DNA evidence does not necessarily prove descent from wolves, but that they could both be descendents of an extinct precursor? Mojoworker (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys are the experts on things like the infoboxes. I don't know how to do that stuff. As for MSW3 database being updated. I don't know , but something has certainly happened and changed during the last year or two. New studies? Yes papers have been written. Two have been written on genetics by Wilton and his associates since 2010 both strongly supporting the separation of dingo from domestic dog. It's just so ridiculously clear that there's a definite difference. We've had some Singing Dogs DNA purity tested by him and the results are interesting. It's such a tragedy that he has passed on so young. We're mourning his loss. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the standards for this breed from the United Kennel Club: http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/e63329fac2fcceaa8525735c0061eb4d/0c9c82dd4ea8e5fd852574160053704a?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,Guinea. We can plug these into the "standards" part of the box. We can also use this to fix the link to this page in the references. Chrisrus (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

New Guinea Singing Dog
Other names	New Guinea Dingo Singing Dog Singer New Guinea Highland Dog New Guinea Wild Dog Hallstrom Dog Papua New Guinea Singing Dog New Guinea Singing Dingo NGSD NGD
Origin	Papua New Guinea
Notes	Even though taonomic experts have placed the NGSD in the "domestic dog" branch of the Canid family tree, DNA research has shown that they are not a "domesticated" canine. Like the Australian Dingo, they are True Wild Dogs.
Dog (domestic dog)

Chrisrus, I think you're still missing my point here. This article should about a wild dog, a wild animal if you will, called the New Guinea Singing Dog or New Guinea Dingo. It is not about the captive population some of which have been domesticated. This article needs to be rewritten to reflect information regarding "wild" Singing Dogs and then another article for the captive population/domesticated breed of NGSD needs to be written. Our problem here is that we're mixing up two, actually three, entirely different animals. If they can all be combined into one article, I say "fine", but one reason we are arguing is because you're talking about apples and I'm talking about oranges. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This dog, like the Australian Dingo, is descended from domestic dogs. The Austronesian people brought their dogs with them when the settled the lowlands and those ordinary village dogs, those domestic dogs, some of them, disappeared into the highlands far from Austronesians and went wild and became this dog. They are radically differnt from the lowland PNG dogs because they had been radically changed by living in the wild for about one thousand years. That changed them alot. Probably it happened quickly, because dogs can evolve quickly into radically different forms. They're known for it. Then we came along and captured some and now you have a bunch in your backyard. This will change them also as time goes by. You are re-domesticating them. But they are still dogs, true "domestic dogs" as opposed to Raccoon dogs or Bush dogs or some other "dog" species that aren't true dogs; in that sense of the term "domestic dog." Even when they'd been living in the wild for hundreds and hundreds of years, learning to cooperate by sound like a wolf in the night, to increase it's prey drive, and to climb, climb, climb, unlike any other domestic dog, to become a very special and important and interesting domestic dog because they've gone through a process of un-domestication, if you will, that quite rightly has you hesitent to use the term "domestic" with them. They are something between a wild animal that should be best kept in a zoo, which is where I first saw one, and a dog like Casey my Spaniel or my neighbor Brian's Diva, the Peekingese, or Zander and Lilly, Michelle's Boxers two doors down. Your dogs and our dogs are all radically different from each other, but they still belong to the domestic dog branch on the tree of life, even though yours belong to the "dingo" sub-branch and ours belong to the "familiaris" sub-branch. As a scientific term, "domestic dog" refers to a branch on a family tree, and applies even to those dogs that aren't "domesticated" really anymore. We have to tell the reader this and you will be satisfied, I think. It's quite easily misunderstood. I'll try to write some text for the article. We could say something like "Even though the NGSD belongs to the "domestic dog" branch of the Canid family tree, they are not really a "domesticated" animal by nature because because...., and so, like their close cousin the Australian Dingo, they are technically called True Wild Dogs".

Mojo, Personally, I've never heard the Austronesian/1,000 year theory before, but a quick browze through any of the latest genetic references will give any reader a different impression. Singing Dogs as well as AUD are much older than what you say and they arrived overland from China, not by Austronesian boat, at least that's what a coupling of fossil findings and extensive genetic testing auggest. Not sure of your theory's origin. Anyway, you're a super help here and I sure don't want to offend you. I didn't say you need to be "pro-Singer" showing partiality, only adhere to the factual research findings. As far as combining the information regarding wild, captive and domestic, yes, it seems to be the way to go at this time. My only concern is being able to verify information through cited references. Some information is so new that nothing has been written about it as yet. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever anywhere for any good reason that can prove that NGSD or AUD were or ever have been "domesticated." None, whatsoever, anyplace. When you look at NGSD and AUD, you are looking at "pre-domestc dog".. NGSD and AUD are before "domestic dog". They are genetically different from "domestic dog". Easily identifiable, genetically different. As said before, from DNA sampling, it is quite probable that the entire NGSD and AUD populaions sprung from the offspring of one pregnant bitch. In other words, NGSD and AUD were cut from the exact same block of wood. They are, therefore, much closer than cousins. They are in fact, litter mates, brothers and sisters. What has made them slightly different, especially in appearance, is their isolation from one another and natural selection conducted by nature over thousands of years. so, on the outside, NGSD and AUD are different, but genetically, they are the same. Why are we so adamant about including the term "domestic dog" in NGSD literature? For some reason, there is a need on the part of some people to make small of NGSD and AUD qualities and contributions.. I think these trivializing ideas exist because so few writers and the public in general have ever seen or experienced a NGSD or AUD. Once a person has "real" contact and experience with these dogs, they come to realize very quickly that there is more to them than photos and text can convey. To write properly of these animals, you have to experience them. It's the same with any animal.. Although I appreciate your intentions, the goal of this article should not be to "please me" or anyone else for that matter, rather, the goal should be to present the facts brought forth by the most current research by using cited references. The fact is that according to current genetic research, the NGSD and AUD are not domestic dogs, period, plain and simple, neither by nature or any other way. They are simply not domestic dogs. They are on a level above domestic dogs. They are "apart from domestic dogs." osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

How and when did C.l.dingoes get to Australia? What about PNG? Look [http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=vpc14 | here for two slightly different theories, and the fact that the oldest dingo fossils are estimated at being between 3,000 and 3,500 years old. People originally though that the original ancestors of the Australian Aborigines must have brought them with them when they came to Australia, but that article says the oldest evidence of humans there is about 45,000 years ago. There is no way they evolved in Australia, as only Marsupials and such primitive mammals evolved there. They had to have been brought by humans by boat. Now, you could say that the humans could have brought already wild dogs with them, as domesticated dogs, and then went feral and then eventually wild. Similarly, there is no way NGSD's original ancestors evolved on NG. There are no advanced mammals that evolved there, let alone any Canis lupus. When people arrived New_Guinea#History there says that PNG was first settled maybe 50,000 years ago during the ice age, but the Austronesians came about three thousand years ago, followed by only three thousand years ago during their diaspora. Are you saying they didn't bring their dogs? They brought them everywhere and still have them now and they have them everywhere else. NGSDs are descended from domesticated dogs Australnesian settlers brought with them because they also have the same basic Canis lupus dingo branch of dog everywhere they live today.

If people didn't bring them to PNG, how did they get there? If they have never been domesticated, how did they become dogs? All true dogs are just domesticated Canis lupus wolves. Are you saying they are not true Canis lupus subspecies dogs, like African Wild Dogs or some such? Are you saying they are not True Dogs, as opposed to Bush Dogs or some such? NGSDs belong to the same branch on the tree of life as Australian dingoes, Telomians, Thai Dogs, etc., which branched off from the rest of the true dogs like Casey and Diva and Zander, and then if you go further back from the split between the Southern Wolf branch of the two main branches of the Wolves. Going back further, you'll meat the common ancestor of Coyotes, Golden Jackels, and then Ethiopian Wolves, then you'll meet the branch of the other Jackels and other branches such as the ancestor of the dhole, the south American canids, and finally dovetailing with the common ancestor dogs have with Raccoon dogs. This dog has its established place on the Tree of Life, and it's on the Domestic Dog branch with all the other true dogs and may have it's mysteries, but it's not a complete enigma. It's a true dog, gone wild, but has to have domesticated ancestors because otherwise it wouldn't be a true dog.

Finally, I don't understand your resistence to this. You seem to feel that if it has domestic ancestors it wouldn't be a wild dog, but dogs would still be wolves if it weren't for humans, and so they are all "domestic dogs", but they can revert back to a wild state like AusDingoes prove, so if it happened there why not on PNG as well? Why is it "hurting" the dogs for them to have a domesticated ancestor? They are still wild animals even if they had a domestic ancestor. Having a domesticated ancestor should help you find homes for them. You wouldn't have as much chance of success if you were doing this with bush dogs, but Domesticated Silver Foxes have been created, but that was a government-supported project with more resorces than you've got in your endevors. Having a domesticated ancestor should increase the chances that they've got the genes still in them somewhere for life alongside people and eventurally out of the zoos and zoolike situations where they're mostly kept today and into people's houses like domesticated Silver Foxes. Chrisrus (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved the dog box down the page, and added the standards and your verbiage to the "note" parameter, but I agree it seems somewhat contradictory to list kennel club dog show standards for what is essentially a wild animal. But if thats the reality, so we may need to attempt to edit the article to reflect the captive population, domesticated breed, and the wild population which hopefully still exists in New Guinea. Mojoworker (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I just wanted to say, though, that the text there in the "note" I'd thought should go in the text of the article, in an appropriate place, maybe in the lead, because it goes to what this animal is. Even though it's on the "domestic dog" branch of the tree of life, it's not "domesticated"; it's a wild animal. OSM is right to worry that, by saying that it is a "domestic dog", we're just saying it's not a Bush Dog or a Raccoon Dog or some other "dog", but a "domestic dog", but that the reader shouldn't misunderstand that this is not to say that they're not a wild animal. Sometimes domestic animals can revert back to being a wild animal again. If feral domestic animals are left to fend for themselves long enough, they domestication process can reverse, as in this case. So my point is this is important to know, but I've never seen important information explained in text form in a taxobox; it's just not done. The problem is, these conversations should stay in their sections so we won't get confused as to what we're talking about. Chrisrus (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of questions

OSM, I saw your change today where the sentence now reads: "All of the photographs, research, and studies included in this article are of Singers in captivity." But the section New Guinea Singing Dog#Distribution seems to contradict that. Maybe add that indirect research has been done or is that sentence really important or can it just be removed? Also is the caption of the photo "Black and Tan Colored Singing Dogs are rare. Only two sisters are known to exist today" correct? The photo File:Hallstromhund - schwarz.JPG from the Berlin Zoo seems to contradict that. Although the date is from 29 March 2009 so the old guy may no longer be with us, but is that known for certain? Mojoworker (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mojo, I deleted the sentence as you suggested and changed the B&T caption. I'm not sure about the old German B&T either, but I do know there are a couple more B&Ts in Canada. So, there may be as many as 5 or 6 in existence. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference list

Could someone please tell me how to access the reference list? Thank you.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming I'm interpreting your question correctly, I'll try to answer it. The items in the New Guinea Singing Dog#References are created automatically from the inline citations that are enclosed in <ref> tags in the article. For example ref #4 is in the New Guinea Singing Dog#History and classification section, for the sentence "In 1958, Dr Ellis Troughton examined the two Singer specimens from the Taronga Zoo in Sydney." the ref immediately follows it: <ref>{{Cite web|last=Funk|first=Holger|title=Shiba and Dingo|url=http://www.shiba-dog.de/dingo-en.htm|accessdate=30 May 2010|year=2005}}</ref> If that's not what you were asking, or if you have more questions, let me know. Mojoworker (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mojo, Sorry I wasn't clear. I want to edit the reference list, add to the article and add references but when I hit edit, the list isn't there. Where is it? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's right. the only thing in the ==References== section is {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. That {{Reflist}} tag instructs the Wikimedia software to insert at that spot the collection of inline <refs> that it has collected in the article. So, you just need to insert your additional verbiage to the article and where you want to add a citation for it (usually at the end of the sentence), put your citation between a <ref> and </ref> tag as I described above. See WP:REF especially WP:INCITE. Note that there is a shortcut link below the "Save Page", "Show Preview", and "Show Changes" buttons that says "Cite your sources: <ref></ref>" and the last part of that is a hyperlink that will insert a blank <ref></ref> pair into the edit window at the spot where you are editing. Also notice that when editing a page — at least the way I have my Wikipedia editing set up — just above the edit window on the line that starts with a large "B" for Bold, followed by a large "I" for Italic, the last thing in the line is a "Cite" dropdown list. If you click on that, it opens a line below it with fill in forms for citations (under the "Templates" dropdown), a "Named references" list where you can choose to cite an existing reference already used elsewhere in the article and an "Error check" function where you can check your added references. Mojoworker (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mojo, Thank you for your help. I surely do appreciate it. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem — I'm happy to help. It sounds more complicated than it really is in practice and you should be able to figure it out fairly quickly. I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of creating a Subpage for you from your main user page so you can test out references while you get the hang of it. It is at User:Oldsingerman20/Sandbox and I also put a link to it on your user page. You can also formulate article additions there and then copy them over to the live article once the change is ready, for example the "Hybridization: History and implications for the future" you added (which seems like a good idea for a section). But instead of inserting the empty section to the article and then working on it over time, you can work on it in the sandbox and then copy it over. We probably should put at least a sentence in there saying something like "Hybridization is one of the most serious threats to the NGSD as it has been to the AU dingo", and then improve it. But at least then the section isn't blank.

Also, I just replaced the "Free-ranging dog" you wiki-linked in the see also section with "True Wild Dogs" which is a subsection of the Free-ranging dog article describing the NGSD. I'm not sure if that's an improvement and if that's the section you wanted to refer readers to — but if not, feel free to revert the change. Mojoworker (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I added two references: #s 2 & 19, but neither is done properly. I don't what I did wrong. Help! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. you were pretty close. I fixed the first one [1]. You had <ref>{{Cite=Natalie Muller|"Dingoes originated in China 18,000 years ago"|Australian Geographic|access date=September 13th|year=2011|</ref> and I replaced that with <ref>{{cite web|last=Muller|first=Natalie|title=Dingoes originated in China 18,000 years ago|url=http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/the-dingo-came-to-australia-from-southern-china.htm|work=Australian Geographic|publisher=Australian Geographic Society|date=13 september 2011|accessdate=25 October 2011}}</ref>. You were missing the "}}" to close the cite template and you had the syntax a little bit messed up. It's probably easiest to use the fill-in form described above. That's what I used and it generated all the {{cite web}} template information.

For the second one, you were a bit further off. You had <ref>Don Ehrlich reference name="Singers Singing-Hear the Cry of the New Guiinea Singing Dog." Cite source=Zoological Association of America Newsletter & Journal Summer 2011 Volume 5 Issue 2</ref> which I replaced with <ref>{{cite journal|last=Ehrlich|first=Don|title=Singers Singing-Hear the Cry of the New Guinea Singing Dog|journal=Zoological Association of America Newsletter & Journal|date=Summer 2011|volume=5|issue=2}}</ref>. Note that I used a {{cite journal}} template instead of the {{cite web}} used on the first one since the journal doesn't seem to be available on the web. Mojoworker (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mojo, Thank you for fixing #2 reference. I'd have never even come close on that one. Is #19 OK? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

They should both be OK now. The second one took me a bit longer because I was looking to see if it was available online... I hope you can understand my explanation above for what you had wrong. Like I said, your best bet is probably to use the fill-in form — at least until you get the hang of the citation templates. Let me know if you have questions — if so, I can probably explain further on your talk page. Mojoworker (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I undid your last change — the parameters are indeed lowercase and the "cite journal" template formats them automatically in the correct Wikipedia style without "Volume 5" and "Issue 2" text, but as 5(2). See ref #1 and ref #9 for comparison. Mojoworker (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for redoing #19 to the proper format. I see what you did. Thank you. I'm not going to say much about hybrids except to look up the references for historical data and plug it into the text. There are some cites available. I just have to have the time to find them again. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox Revisited

Your dingobox idea has a lot of merit. I'd make it look like it's cut out of the same block of wood as the infobox and dogbox so no one can complain that its out of place or inappropriate. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Chrisrus made the remark up the page a ways that "dogs would still be wolves if it weren't for humans." Could someone explain to me how simple association with humans changed dogs in form and genetics? I mean what did the humans do, go out one morning saying "Now then wolf, I have this idea. I want you to be it. We'll call the new you, "Dog", better yet, we'll call you "domestic dog." I mean, where do people come up with this stuff? Also, we need to define the word commensal. My understanding of the word commensal is that two organisms are living side by side neither dependent upon the other, but the way I'm seeing commensal used, it's saying one organism is dependent upon another. Basically the way it's being used in some of these articles is that Dingoes were bloody beggars who lived off man. I don't believe that notion for a minute. Beggars and gsrbage eaters are and always have been, village dogs, not NGSD or AUD. NGSD and AUD avoided man. Still do. Anyone who knows anything about Singing Dogs knows that they are inherently shy and avoid contact with humans unless they are befriended by humans and shown full well that the human can be trusted. It seems pretty doubtful to me that wild NGSD and AUD hung around villages. Maybe some of them di, but when the Austronesian dogs and European dogs came along to the villages, the wild Singers blood was thinned and their genes watered down. So basically, the true NGSD and true AUD did not have contact with man. Contact with man invarieably spelled a NGSD or AUD's downfall. I still want to know how simple associatiopn with humans changed the wolves to dogs?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We also need to be careful how the synonym is used taxonomically. In taxonomy a synonym is not equal to or interchangeable with the original word. In many cases, synonyms are history. As I read some of the articles I get the distinct impression that the word has been intentionally misused in order to strengthen a bias. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's see what happens when we click on Commensal. Also, there is the article evolution of the dog that we should read or re-read. And here's taxonomic synonym, let's read that. We want everyone to be on the same page with these terms. Chrisrus (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I read Commensal. After reading it, if that is the definition of commensal, then we need to strike it from use in dingo articles as at least the AUD and NGSD did not benefit from their relationship with humans. Village Dogs, yes, but not NGSD or AUD. NGSD and AUD were not scavengers feeding off human throwaways. When you talk about scavenging, you're talking Village Dogs or the Austronesian Dogs. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, in talking with biologists and after reading more and more regarding the use of taxonomic synonyms, I personally feel that the term is being misused. A taxonomic synonym is not equal to the scientific name. It is more like history or descriptive of a different mix or multiple or other match. Making a big deal of taxonomic synonyms is really more of a way to show prejudice. It's similar to always harping on the domestication issue. Sometimes things left unsaid are actually more neutral than constantly mentioning them. It's a negative concept, a belittlement wording. It's like saying, "Yes, a plumber performs a valuable service to the community even though he always has an unsavory odor about him." That is a negative comment about a plumber. There was no need to bring up his body odor. Some people are really good at that sort of writing, but as far as I'm concerned wording should be factual and positive, not factual and negative. Another descriptor for that kind of writing is "making catty remarks." osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

When they list "halstromi" as a "synonym" for C.l.dingo, they are saying that all specimens referred to by that name are C.l.dingo, but in this case obviously not the other way around. I don't understand why that would be "insulting". And you are right, true wild dog says they're called "wild", not merely "feral" because they're not "commensal"; they fend for themselves, for the most part. I doubt they'd pass up something tasty a person had left behind, but they don't depend on that kind of thing. They can fend for themselves and are therefore called "wild", not "feral." I suppose that this means they are "special" or "unique"; because there are tons of feral dogs but not so many true wild dogs. I bet most feral dogs couldn't make it, fending for themselves in the wild. If they did, and did for a long time, they'd've evolved into a wild dog. Chrisrus (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Halstromi isn't insulting. We'll know the terms I'm referring to as we see them again. As far as unique, yes, I'd say NGSD are unique seeing as to how there is no other canine like them in their isolated habitat situation in the small numbers left alive.(Unknown in the wild and maybe 300 in capivity.) AUD was also isolated, but there are more of them. I can't speak for other dingoes because I'm not versed in them, but I'd bet that living near people has pretty well done them in. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr Wilton

Fellow Editors, This is a link to an excellent article about Dr. Alan Wilton. In 2004 he was able to differentiate between pure Dingoes and hybrids. Subsequent testing found that NGSD and AUD were nearly identical so then he was able to test NGSD samples for purity. Anyway, it's worth reading in order to get a grasp on the importance of his work. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC) http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dingo/dna.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Decision regarding left lead photo

Fellow editors, What is your opinion? Should we move, remove or leave the left lead photo? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I did not "waltz in here and impose [my] will like some sort of dictator". Neither you or I own the article. See the appropriate guidelines in WP:LAYIM, WP:IMAGES, and WP:LEAD. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian, No, you are not going to just come in and delete editors' work. You did in fact waltz in and delete a photo. What exactly do you think gives you the right to delete other editor's work? Are you someone special who has been given God like powers to delete other's work without so much as a polite request? You are impolite and discourteous. Please provide information for us stating what articles you have authored so we may go look at your skills in writing. Who knows, we might not like what we find and sumarily delete your work. Am I being polite to you? No, I'm not and the reason is that you have committed vandalism by waltzing in and imposing your will. If the guidelines specify what you say then please provide an exact quote that says we have too many photos and that there should not be a photo in the lead. I read the guidelines and didn't find it. You are correct that no one owns the articles, but there should be some semblance of courtesy involved when deleting other's work. Show us the quote and I will remove or reposition the photo, but don't think you have the right or privilege to come in and make changes in a discourteous manner. If you do have that right then wikipedia is going to lose a lot of good editors. Clear?? Now then, where would you like the photo placed? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it is disruptive to the lead sentence. In 1024x768 monitors, the text is squeezed into a very narrow line. Tell me, dear sir, how many articles on Wikipedia do you see with a huge picture on both sides of the lead sentence? This is Wikipedia convention and is stated in our manual of style.

From WP:LAYIM:Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. All images should also have an explicative caption. An image that would otherwise overwhelm the available text space on a 800×600 window should be shrunk or formatted as a panorama. It is a good idea to try to maintain visual coherence by aligning the sizes of images and templates on a given page.

When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers. Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images.

From WP:IMAGES:Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example, Timpani). However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox.

Do not place images on the left at the start of any section or subsection. Images on the left must be placed somewhere after the first paragraph.

That good enough for you? I noticed in your posts above that you act like you WP:OWN the article and that you seem to have a WP:Conflict of interest when it comes to New Guinea Singing Dogs, as you sell them. I am an uninvolved editor. If you keep acting like you own the article, I may have to report you for this.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is a very minor layout edit I am doing and your overreaction really does exhibit the classic signs of WP:OWN. As most editors who exhibit WP:OWN do not realize it, I suggest you read up on the latter guideline and maybe curb the behavior. It is natural to be protective of your own contributions, but please do not take it too far as to require every editor to pass your muster before their edits can be "accepted" by you. I do not require your permission to make edits to articles you've been the primary contributor of, as you do not require my permission to make improvements to articles I contributed to or anyone else for that matter. Threatening to delete articles I've been the primary contributor to is also a very inappropriate response. All our edits become public property once we click the save button, as is mentioned in every edit box.

You are welcome to move the images to an appropriate section (though as I said, the article currently has more than enough images), but please keep it out of the lead paragraphs.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then how many paragrapghs are "lead" paragraphs. Just how far down the article should the picture be placed? Where exactly would you like for me to place the picture you continue to delete? As for conflict of interest, you obviously know nothing about Singing Dogs or myself as my wife and I and others in our organization which isn't even mentioned in the article, do not sell Singing Dogs. We raise them for conservation purposes so that people like yourself and your children and grandchildren might be able to see on in their lifetime. Report away. In my estimation, you need to educate yourself properly before you make wild and irrelvant accusations. As far as owning the aricle, I understand full well that I do not own the article. Couldn't care less about owning it, but there are few authors capable of writing about these animals accurately and I happen to be one of them There are others, and they are more than welcome to contribute, but when someone such as yourself who has no subject knowledge comes along and dismantles work assembled by several other authors simply because he/she don't think the formatting is correct is utterly beyond reason. The aim, I think, of wikipedia is to diseminate information, correct information. But oh yes, let's put it in a proper format even if it means taking infoormation away from the article. Who cares what the article says so long as it is formatted properly. No, I share knowledge with you and you share knowledge with me, that's called being constructive and cooperative. Deleting someone's work without so much as a "by your leave" is improper. I'm going to see if I can retrieve the photo and I will place it in the last section. Will that be far enough away for "lead paragraphs" to suit you or will you continue to vandalize the article and harrass those who have contributed to it? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the picture but it is now impinging on the references section. I have moved it a bit higher.

Please stop continued accusations of vandalism, placement of pictures in no way affects the quality or accuracy of the text. I do not have specialist knowledge of New Guinea singing dogs, but I have contributed to far more varied biological articles on Wikipedia than you, including a couple of good articles. This does not affect which articles I can or can not edit, but I do have more than enough experience and familiarity with our guidelines. You obviously are also in no position to declare which editors can or can not edit this article (no editor requires a "by leave" from another editor). Again please assume good faith.

In light of your recent comment, I still have to report you though. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian, What kind of a sentence is "In light of your recent comment, I still have to report you though"?? You use that sort of poor English yet you can edit others' work? Additionally, anyone who doesn't capitalize "Singing Dogs" in the dogs' name is incorrect again. All the words in "New Guinea Singing Dog" are capitalized. Your way it'd be like writing "German shepard or Siberian husky, or Miniature dachshund." If you don't think that photo placement affects the accuracy or quality of the text, then why are you determined to bury the photo? Ah yes, following the guidelines. Certainly, guidleines take precedence over content and accuracy, but then you say photos don't make any difference. Right! You're taking one of the best photos of a Singing Dog we have ever seen and burying it. By best, I mean that the photo shows more about Singing Dogs in a single photo than any we've seen. Now then, since you don't know anything about Singing Dogs, you assume that all photos of them are equal. Not so. 23 years and hundreds of Singing Dogs later, I can recognize things in a Singing Dog photo that you cannot recognize. I'll bet you haven't a clue as to how hard it might be to get pictures that are good enough to put in the article. Not a clue. You wonder why I'm upset with you? It's because you come on and delete work that someone else values even though you don't have a clue. You are certainly correct about one thing. You do not need my permission to change the article. I do not own the article, but as a wiki editor or actually just as a wiki user, I have the right to expect the best content quality possible and truth is, you aren't capable of providing the best content possible because you don't know the subject. You know rules. People who know nothing about a subject shouldn't think they have the right to vandalize it. I don't care who posted the photo.. Editors go to a lot of trouble finding and even taking photos as well as posting them to articles and you should give those editors respect no matter who they are. You do not make the contributions. They made the contributions. There's a term for what I'm trying to get through to you. I believe it's called common decency. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

re: Common names, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). With a few exceptions (birds and primates), we use sentence case for common names. Again, this is a Wikipedia-wide convention and not a personal failing as you seem to believe.

re: Personal attacks. I'm not a native English speaker, but my English is good enough, thank you very much. At least I do not misspell "shepard" or "guidleines" like you just did. And yes I do know how hard it is to find photos for articles actually. I'm a 3d artist and have contributed several 3d reconstructions of fossil taxa in Wikipedia. I also actively seek out illustrations for articles, as well as take pictures of native flora and fauna in my area. You, on the other hand, seem to have no other major contributions other than this article.

I removed a photo that doesn't seem to be relevant to the given section (the lead paragraph) because it disrupts the article layout. I also invited you to place it elsewhere, nowhere did I attempt to "bury" the picture. Your extremely hostile reaction is both puzzling and inappropriate. I believe it's called anger management issues.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well obsidian soul, call it whatever you wish, but I'm 65 years old and don't have the time to waste on the likes of you. It's been really nice meeting some of the editors on wiki, but I'm all outta patience. I'm outta here. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Threatening to leave is also a very common indication of ownership behavior. You really have exhibited virtually all the typical behavior of WP:OWN as listed in Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Examples of ownership behavior. Even more puzzling is the fact that I haven't been rude to you at all until you started insulting me. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you Obsidian for making your contributions to this article and for you putting Oldsingerman in his place. It's ironic to see him complain about your removal of his photos when he himself had previously removed my only two photos and link from this article with full knowledge they were mine and without asking first. At one point he had 16 of the 21 photos in the article that are of his own personal NGSD's. His ability to work well with others is limited to those folks who agree with his views. I would however request that you not report him as he has added lots of good information to this article over the past few years and he does have a passion for the NGSD like no other person in the world. Sadly, much of the information about the NGSD is not in print but has been observed over the years by Oldsingerman. He does deserve some respect. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I would add that information in the article that is original to OSM should be cited to his website, not left uncited. He is an expert, so if he publishes there at his website, it's not ideal but we could cite his website. There aren't very many experts on this topic and he's one of them. He shouldn't publish original research here, but there, and then we could report it here. Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My ANI report (which has since closed) consisted only of his WP:OWN behavior. I recommended no disciplinary measures, but merely asked for assistance in making him understand how collaboration is very important in Wikipedia, especially with non-specialists. He's certainly not banned from editing the article, and I certainly have a lot of respect for him and his work, but I do wish he takes the time to read and understand WP:OWN more and avoid incidents like the above. Nevertheless, the bulk of the article cleanup were done by User:Peter coxhead and User:Mann jess (see below), for which I'm also grateful.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I misss the abundant pictures, but I use a laptop and don't know what people trying to read an article on an Iphone or whatever have to go through trying to read an article with too many pictures in the wrong place. But also, beyond what you recommend, let's also agree to ask that he cite any of his original research to his own website. While, to his credit, OSM freely admits he doesn't know tons about taxonomy and such, as to the physical characteristics, temprement/behavior, or other things that an expert of his type (he's I suppose something between a zookeeper and a breeder) would know, even though his website isn't perfect WP:RS, the published papers on this topic aren't very many and more importantly maybe are written by people with much less hands-on experience and haven't seen very many individuals, so how much authority could they have to say, for example, how many different colors they come in or such? This is, unless OSM and others have changed that situation by now, the rarest dog in the world, so there's just not all that much out there to base this article on.

Anyway, my main concern is the infobox. Please review the thread on that topic, as we need appropriate action or more input on this matter. Chrisrus (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree certainly, as he is undoubtedly an authority. Taxonomy is a whole other matter though. I don't deal with mammalian articles much, so I'm afraid I can't help there.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

New Guinea Singing Dog
Other names	New Guinea Dingo Singing Dog Singer New Guinea Highland Dog New Guinea Wild Dog Hallstrom Dog New Guinea Singing Dingo NGSD NGD
Origin	Papua New Guinea
Dog (domestic dog)

I'm moving this down to a new section so it doesn't get lost. Should I go ahead and update the Infobox dog breed template so that we can put it into this article, or should we make a Dingobox or leave it as a Taxobox? Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice work starting a new separate discussion section for this topic. It needed to be done. To answer your question, I support the new Dingobox replace the taxobox as soon as it is appropriate because that's what MSW3 and the NGSD citation text "Canids" also say it is. Then, the Dog Project should be informed for comment that we would like to also do the same for every other local landrace confirmed for Canis lupus dingo: the Telomian, the Australian Dingo, this Tenger dog that should get an article right away, and whatever else can be determined for sure are currently listed as equiviant to C.l.dingo. And also, I just thought, we should add a third option to the dogbox, C.l.f., C.l.d, and one for POSSIBLY C.l.d. for the Carolina Dog and the Basenji and whatever else is thought by some experts to be Cld but experts disagree so we as wikipedians don't want to take a stand on it without some ruling. Actually, this discussion should be moved to the Dog Project and request comment. But we should move as soon as appropriate. Current taxonomy does not have just one taxon for dogs. There are, at the moment, two. Chrisrus (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you fix it so that the longest name there, "Papua New Guinea Singing Dog" doesn't wrap to the next line? It makes it look as if two of the names are "Papua New Guinea Singing", followed by "Dog", and then so on. Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

that box looks great, agree with the above user that the wrap text is a little disconcerting. but other then that its awesome.Millertime246 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't really change the column width on the "Template:Infobox dog breed", so I think creating a separate "Template:Infobox dingo" probably makes the most sense. I don't really like the way the dog breed infobox is coded anyway, so I'll see if I can put something together as soon as I get a chance. Do you think it should look similar to the "Template:Infobox dog breed" or should I make it look a little "snazzier"? Mojoworker (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We still haven't done this, and it's not just because of OSM's somewhat questionable rhetoric in the section below I've just separated out. When I went to replace it, there's a hidden note there you'll see if you try to replace the taxobox with the dogbox. Try it yourself, you'll find what I found. It says "do not remove", basically, without checking certain references. Here are the exact words:

classification_status=unresolved<ref name=status/> <!-- From Ref: "It is, at minimum, an evolutionarily significant unit, and, at maximum, could be its own distinct species (Simonsen 1976; Gollan 1982; S Bulmer 2001; Bininda-Emonds 2002; Koler-Matznick et al. 2002; Clark et al. 2004; Savolainen et al. 2004). Therefore, for conservation purposes, the wild singing dog should be considered a unique taxon until the contrary is clearly demonstrated -->

I tried to find those references, and even though I didn't, I checked number two of the reference sections for this article, http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AM07005, and found out that OSM is right about this thing: there still are experts, and these are true NGSD experts, people who are cited just in just about every paper on this subject, who are still trying to persuade the scientific community of the validity of the taxon halistromi. I took it to Wikiproject Tree of Life and requested a comment on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#The_place_of_the_New_Guinea_Singing_Dog_on_the_canid_branch_of_the_tree_of_life. Have a look at what happened. Richard Farm User:Rkitko read it and said gave it the thumbs down. But what about all the others? (Simonsen 1976; Gollan 1982; S Bulmer 2001; Bininda-Emonds 2002; Koler-Matznick et al. 2002; Clark et al. 2004; Savolainen et al. 2004). Can you find these references? Do they not support a taxobox for the article? Will we go ahead with the dingobox? Chrisrus (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the comment you are referencing above, not OSM — and not to indicate "do not remove", but rather as explanation for the unresolved value for the classification_status parameter. I've been travelling, so haven't had time to create a proper "dingobox", but I'll see if I can get one put togeter as it seems that may be the proper solution. Mojoworker (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm sorry. You're saying that these references inbedded in the taxobox, (Simonsen 1976; Gollan 1982; S Bulmer 2001; Bininda-Emonds 2002; Koler-Matznick et al. 2002; Clark et al. 2004; Savolainen et al. 2004). were added by you? Ok, so this bit "Therefore, for conservation purposes, the wild singing dog should be considered a unique taxon until the contrary is clearly demonstrated." I understood it to be saying "do not replace taxobox with dogbox until you've checked all these references", and so far we've only checked one that I found in the references. Ok, well if we don't have to have someone review all those papers, can we go with the dingobox just above? You seem to want to work with it some more first. I'd like to finalize it because there are several articles about varieties of Canis lupus dingo, and the authority this taxobox uses for "C.l.d. var.halistomi" is actually only for C.l.d., so that seems wrong still, and I'm not so sure that we're supposed to use taxoboxes for varieties or breeds. Chrisrus (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I added that comment from the references and the entire verbiage: "It is, at minimum, an evolutionarily significant unit, and, at maximum, could be its own distinct species (Simonsen 1976; Gollan 1982; S Bulmer 2001; Bininda-Emonds 2002; Koler-Matznick et al. 2002; Clark et al. 2004; Savolainen et al. 2004). Therefore, for conservation purposes, the wild singing dog should be considered a unique taxon until the contrary is clearly demonstrated" is quoted verbatim from pp. 47-48 of the Journal of the Australian Mammal Society paper [2] reference (full text available here: [3] which I think you already found. Whether or not those references (Simonsen 1976; Gollan 1982; S Bulmer 2001; Bininda-Emonds 2002; Koler-Matznick et al. 2002; Clark et al. 2004; Savolainen et al. 2004), need further review, I can't say. Did they address those references in the Tree of Life discussion you mentioned above? I haven't read that discussion yet, but I'll see if I can read it sometime today.

I can swap in the "dingoized" version of the dogbox that I made, but it's really just a modified and sandboxed version of the "Infobox dog breed" and I'm hesitant to replace the actual Infobox dog breed box with it. I think it would be better to make an actual dingobox to be used here and on the AU Dingo page (and wherever else appropriate). I'll try to get to it over the Thanksgiving weekend. Mojoworker (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Images and sandwiching of text

The images in this article seriously violated MOS:IMAGES as regards sandwiching text between images. Now that more and more people view Wikipedia on mobile devices (phones and pads) with small screens, it's even more important not to sandwich text. I've moved some images to the gallery below so they aren't lost; it's not always clear which ones to leave.

• 
  NGSD female riding in her owner's truck as a companion dog.
• 
  Singer resting under her owner's furniture.
• 
  Singing Dog exercising at a dog park
• 
  NGSD eyes glow bright green when light is shined on them in darkness.
• 
  By age 7, the black muzzle begins to turn gray
• 
  Singing Dog with young pups. Note dark coloration of the newborns.

There may be better ways to arrange the images in the article which manage to avoid sandwiching text; feel free to put images back so long as this policy is followed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed some other images here. Feel free to swap in or out any from what we have now, but please try to keep it to a reasonable number. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jess that really cleaned up the article.--Adam in MO Talk 10:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the green eyeshine picture is important documentation. Are there really no other kinds of dogs with green eyeshine? What color eyeshine does an Aus Dingo have? This reader wants to know. Chrisrus (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, The green eyeshine is present in all versions of the Dingo (PNG, AU, & Asian) along with the wolf. Keep in mind that Dingo DNA is as close to a wolf than any other canid. I will see if documentation can be tracked down. Thanks for leaving that green eyed dogs photo up. That is actually my own Singer. He is also shown singing in the article. Tomcue2 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox or dingobox? revisited

We have been looking at the papers hidden in the taxobox. I am not qualified to evaluate them. I have just tried to identify the part of the conclusions which are relevant here. One of them says "….The G-6-PD of the fox is identical with the G-6-PD of the coyote and the Hallstrom-dog…..The Hallstrom-dog and the coyote have electrophoretic identical enzymes, except PGI. SCHULTZ (1968) has put forward the hypothesis, that the Hallstrom-dog is a dog returned to a wild state and mixed up with other Canidae. The author's measurements of skull, skeleton etc. strongly indicate that the Hallstrom-dog is closely related to the dingo. P. CLARK(p ers. comm.) has not found any difference between dog and dingo (see Table 2). " This is the paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1976.tb01531.x/pdf. In this paper, it's referred to as Canis hallstromi, not Canis dingo hallstromi or Canis lupus hallstromi or whatever. Chrisrus (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I think that coyote/dog study regarding enzymes is old stuff that is no longer relevant. More than anything, it has confused people and put forth some pretty silly ideas. The skull measurements are interesting and help to verify the DNA findings re the close relationship of AU Dingoes to NGSD. Skull measurements are still being done whenever they can find a dead Singer to necropsy. Janice Matznick is probably a good authority on those studies as I believe she has worked with them for a long time. But as far as I know, there are no new skull study research studies in print. Sorry, can't help much on the taxobox. Mechanics of it all are outside my area of expertise. Don.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll help out in a limited way

Chrisrus is right on many counts. I will contribute to the article on a limited basis. I will revert obviously negative comments or vandalism. I will make myself availabe to answer questions. I will find and submit references that can be cited. I will make occasional suggestions. What I will not do is get into fist fights with people like Inu, Cueball or Horseracer et al. Nor will I write in the article. My wiki writing days are over but that does not mean that I have lost interest in wiki or in Singers. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As an expert of sorts, it might be possible to use your website as a source. As it is self-published and not peer-reviewed, it is not the ideal WP:RS, but for certain things there just aren't that many people who know much about these dogs in captivity today and for quite some time. I encourage you to separate your objective findings from your promotional website somehow, and also to extend a hand to any researchers who might need your help in getting more facts published about them. Also, if you could here on the talk page continue to make us aware of any WP:RSpapers that you might know about, and what they seem to you to say. For example, how many are there today, that you personally are aware of? Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to this article. Chrisrus (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, These are all good solid suggestions. Do you mean, are you asking me how many Singing Dogs exist today in the captive population? I think that if I were to tell you exactly how few long time experts there exist today, I think you would not believe me. Also, if you factor in a few other things such as holding or collection sizes and bloodline/genetic mixtures, you would be shocked. People have no idea at all how close to extinction these animals really are. I'm quite sure there are some in the wild of New Guinea, but not one single field study, just for studying Singing Dogs, has been undertaken, so there is no empirical evidence available regarding these dogs in their wild habitat. It is so ironic that the two, AU Dingo and NGSD have been identified as the most primitive of dogs and guess what, they're about out the door. Some critics might call this is promotional talk, but as I said most people don't have a clue about the rarity of these dogs. We never sell a Singing Dog. They are placed. We never make money off them. We do not raise them for profit. When we have visitors we tell them up front, "This may be the only opportunity in your entire life to see, touch and talk to one of these dogs." Even then, much of the time, they don't understand what we're trying to convey to them. So sure, we'll serve any way we can. Anything less than that would be inhumane. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. To answer your questions: Not exactly. I mean how many existant NGSDs are you personally aware of. Chrisrus (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, A head count of Singers I am personally aware of would show a total world captive population of 150-200. If a person takes out all specimens that have been spayed or neutered, are old, are pups, are crippled or infirm and so on, you would probably get down to 80. Then if you take out all the captive population specimens that are severely inbred you get down to about 15. Then when you take out the moderately inbred and ask for a headcount of quality, top of the line Singing Dogs, you're down to 7. So, now do you understand why we are concerned

No one, as yet, has published anything about the aftermath of the Pennsylvania Dispersal so currently, there are no references to cite. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin & isolation

This is taken from the article about the Wilton DNA study(ref #4) "The results show domestic dogs came from southern China over 10,000 years ago. The most likely story, say the researchers, is that dingoes and New Guinea singing dogs then dispersed to their destinations via a separate route to the dogs that arrived with Polynesia's first people 3000 years ago. They also made the journey much earlier."

"According to a study by an international research team, genetic data shows the dingo may have originated in southern China, traveling through mainland southeast Asia and Indonesia to reach its destination anywhere between 4600 and 18,300 years ago."

We know the arrival in NG was probably over 6,000 years ago when the land bridge between AU and NG was still available for use.

A reader may conclude from these paragraphs that Singers and AU Dingoes dispersed at the same time, but that might very well be an incorrect assumption.

From earlier Wilton etal DNA studies it has already been established that the entire population of AUD and NGSD originated from one pregnant female. What can that mean exactly??

It looks as though, the way I read the Wilton article, Singers predate the Polynesian dogs but the article is not specific on just how many years. They do say, however that NGSD were enroute from China over 10,000 years ago. If this wiki article is to state that they arrived at the same time as the AU Dingo, then the other Wilton et al DNA study of, I think, 2010, will need to be cited here as well as the more recent study(ref#4). I don't think it can be proven that AUD and NGDS arrived at the same time. In fact, I doubt that they did arrive at the same time. I would guess that a bitch arrived in AU, dropped a litter and so began the AU Dingo population. That also means she may have had a male companion just two months earlier. Then at some point in time one or more specimens crossed the landbridge into New Guinea and thus began the NGSD population. At 6,000 years, the landbridge disappeared so AUD and NGSD separated and thus began their separate uninterrupted developments.

Basically, therefore, probability is high that NGSD began establishing themselves in NG at least 6,000 years ago and as early as 10,000 years ago.

The most verifiable evidence suggests NGSD arrived in NG over 6,000 years ago and their DNA shows they originated from the same mother as AUD and that their DNA also separates them from all modern domestic dogs. This sentence, the one I just wrote draws information from 3 different references. it's a complex subject and thought process and unless an individual(not just me) is tuned into several references all at once, the thought process is incomplete. The worst part is that many people don't know that they don't know. I'll give myself as an example. I am not up on wiki rules. I have left that up to other editors. Sadly, those other editors do not reciprocate the same respect to those of us who know the subject matter but do not know the rules. They impose the rules and disregard the subject matter. So what wiki may end up with are articles that all look alike in format but don't have correct or complete information. When the folks edited out the pictures, they also edited out information relevant to Singing Dogs and to the article, but was there any effort to salvage the information??? No. You see, the information was of lesser value than the format. Does what I'm saying make sense?

Now then, is what I'm saying constitute "demonstrating ownership" of an article or is what I'm saying "just common sense and good judgment".

Now then, this is the reason why the bit about "characteristics and isolation" was moved to this spot in the wiki article. I believe it was moved by one of the recent editors. What that editor didn't do was to also move the reference citation with the statement. The statement itself looks to be writtn by and taken from either Matznick or Brisbin. It needs to be relocated and cited properly or at least cited properly. It's a fairly important statement that needs to be retained in the article rather than simply deleted.

Inu and I have locked horns numerous times in the past. Those personal exchanges can easily be found in several discussion histories.

My one concern with edits such as his as well edits by 71 234 215 133 is that careful revision rather than deletion might be in order and should be embraced.

I read through this wiki Singer article again this morning and there is a definite need to continue editing efforts.(not deletions) There is incorrect information, outdated information, repetition, and conflicting information spread through out the article. Recent edits do not seem to have corrected the problems. It looks as though recent edits shortened the article and removed many photos so cell phone users could have better access with less trouble.

Authors who contribute positively are to be encouraged. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this rhetorically quite well done post, at least the parts where you talk about the RS and what it does and doesn't actually say with regard to the edit in question. I'm anxious to see how Inu responds. His edit summary seemed to say that the statements about the NGSD in the article cited with this paper (can you link us to the paper? We need to see it.) were actually about the Aus Dingo, not the NGSD. Please go back and insert "return" or "enter" one more time beteen paragraphs where you tried to start a new paragraph because without it, your paragraph breaks are not visable to a page reader. Also, while you're at it, please consider removing or moving elsewhere anything that you feel distracts from your main point about what exactly the WP:RS says and the edit in question or makes it too long. Chrisrus (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent edits to your edit justification here. Feel free to edit it further up until he replies or someone else does on his behalf. After that, use the "strikethrough" button if you want to go back and make any more edits to it. If he doesn't reply after an appropriate amount of time and you feel you're finished with your justification for doing so here, go ahead and revert it or re-edit it or whatever you want to do and then leave a link to this discussion page section, Talk:New_Guinea_Singing_Dog#Origin_.26_isolation, in your edit summary and asking him or anyone to reply here before changing it again.

The reference had all of 2 sentences specifically about NGSD; the main thrust was about dingos. Since the ref did not support the information here, I had no way to tell if it is legit with a lost cite, original research, or vandalism. I have also seen very poor reactions to the additions of clean-up tags/templates in this article. I wasn't going to add those and start an argument, so deletion it was.

Don't add any more photos, though, there are plenty in the article. If a reader wants to see more images, the link to Commons is on the page. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The correction you made was accurate. The sentence regarding isolation/changes, was not supported by a proper reference even though the statement is accurate because another uninformed editor made changes and didn't carry along the reference with the statement.

Your rationale for deletion is pretty funny. You feel you will not get into an argument when you delete other author's work.

In order to make more sense out of the article to which you were referring, a person also has to be familiar with at least two other references. In order to make a meaningful text then, at least three references would need to be cited. This kind of text writing takes a lot of time by folks who know what they're doing. For my part, coming in and deleting is not the answer because there may have been a writing plan laid that had not taken shape. Just my opinion, but maybe questioning a text or making suggestions might serve a better purpose than deletion.

Anyone can always delete, but reconstructing deletions is more difficult than making corrections, adding references etc. As I said, just my opinion.

If editors who delete can reconstruct as well as delete, then fine, no problem.

For some silly reason I always thought that wikipedia was built on constructive criticism and cooperative effort. Silly me!

Honestly, I would like to see text written by some of these traveling editors so it could be assessed for quality the same as they do to those of us who write articles. Maybe it would help us all to understand each other's skills.

As far as "poor reactions to the additions of clean-up tags/templates" is concerned, I still say that if traveling clean-up editors such as yourself who simply go from one article to another, to another, to another, infusing your clean-up ideas, would be a little bit courteous to the editors and authors who actually write the articles, wiki would have a much better system. I really have a hard time understanding how anyone who has put hundreds of hours into an article could possibly have "good" reactions to traveling editors who simply waltz in and make deletions and/or corrections without any sort of courtesy and then turn around and gripe because they aren't welcomed with open arms. The whole thing is that these traveling editors have no respect for the authors who write the articles.

I have always said that constructive additions or corrections were welcome. I thought all this was just common courtesy. Now I find out it wasn't common courtesy at all on my part. It was ownership.

I would really like to see these "traveling" editors actually write this article rather than just come along and edit it. The truth is that they do not have the subject matter skills. they come in armed with wiki rules and wiki procedures and if their discourteous changes and edits are challenged, they break out the rule book and report the author for misconduct. Then they call in their editing cronies and almost within hours all the changes have been made and any of the authors who really built the article complain about it, they report the authors for violation of ownership. It's a pretty slick plan. The down side of it is that over a long period of time, the number of contributing editors will decline and the number of traveling editors will increase. Hence, wiki is on a downward spiral so long as they allow these travesties to take place. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How rare are they, and why?

By far my best dog reference book, Dogs by Desmond Morris, on page 691 explains why the NGSD is such a very rare animal in the following way "it is too domesticated to be protected by wildlife enthusiats and too wild to become a favored companion animal". Adding this fact to the article will help the readers. Chrisrus (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Morris pretty well sums it up, doesn't he? They're never really been considered a domestic animal in the modern sense, but they did fall into that trap for a while. Anyone who worked with them at all would soon realize they are not a domestic breed. He's right in that they have not attained a status to where they could be put on an endangered list, yet there are so few of them. They make super companion dogs if placed with the right people. In our opinion, their potentials haven't even begun to be explored. Their senses are so keen that one has to marvel at the fact that no one has picked up on their potential as rescue dogs for finding people after disasters. That task would be a walk in the park for a Singer. Additionally, they have fairly long life span so they could work for many years. Anyway, didn't mean to ramble. Sounds like you found an excellent author. You should work in some of his information. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)