Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Shiloh Shepherd dog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

First section of history

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is everyone ok with this part of the history? If so we can go ahead and move it into the article and get started on the second part.

In 1974, Tina Barber, of Shiloh Shepherd Kennel in New York State, began developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood in Germany; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo. After years of selective breeding and genetic research, she seperated her dogs from the AKC in 1990.

In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was incorporated. Shilohs were originally registered dually through the FIC and AKC, but after difficulty with standards verification, the SSDCA decided to open the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). Due to some documentation problems with the original ISSR registrar, a special program was designed by The Complete Computer Place (TCCP) to process registry data for the ISSR. Since then more than 4,000 dogs have been registered with the ISSR. They also maintain a database with over 45,000 ancestors in order to properly calculate various factors within the limited genepool.

Thanks .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any objections, I'll go ahead and move this to the article so we can focus on working the second section. I also hope to be able to expand and work on some of the other sections today to get closer to the Manual of Style guidelines and start setting this article up for featured article status. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This may be too late, but I think the fact that the ISSR was started in 1991 should be made clear and also that the TCCP started to maintain the records in 1993. There are other statements in that second paragraph that don't seem quite right to me either. SandraSS 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not too late at all, there's no time when an article is considered "finished". I did notice that some dates are missing, like the TCCP you mentioned. You might want to consider rewriting it and then posting it on here before making the changes to the article since that seems to be working to prevent edit-wars. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to the "others" statement that over 50% of the existing ISSR breeders left in '97-98, at Tina's request, I have reviewed the database and put it into a live web page that can be shared with the entire Shiloh fancy. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/otherBreeders.htm.

I am also preparing other documented data pages that will clearly dispell the objections that have been raised by the "other" "editors".

207.200.116.133 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Concerns Posted

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

I apologize for the delay in reponse. The following is thanks to a collaboration by a number of contributing editors that have been participating in these continuing discussions (over 10 weeks now). It's a long one.

Every attempt was made in it's construction to follow Wikietiquette, provide supporting resources to our statements, and be on NPOV in nature.

We ask that any replies/comment concern the below be presented BELOW this posting to allow it to be viewed in it's entirety without disruption or difficulty.

Jareth stated: “Having seen this proposal, I can tell you I have several serious concerns about this version:”

In 1997, Ms. Barber stated she could no longer afford – Jareth stated> “appears to be opinion/misleading, please provide a reference

[1] T. Barber wrote: "By now it should be quite obvious that my efforts to maintain unity among the members has failed! I am physically worn out, mentally drained, and financially busted! I was very concerned that all members would still receive the type of support I had wanted to give them through newsletters…at specialty shows, etc., etc. The new club leaders have assured me that all of you will receive as much...if not more attention! You should be receiving a letter from the new club, along with mine, that should clearly answer all of your questions! For now, I will try to answer some of the FAQ’s asked by members!"

Afford is defined in Webster's dictionary: to spare (money, time, etc)

Her claims were she was tired (time), financially busted (money), mentally drained (overall well being) She could not "afford" to spare any more time, money, or mental well being.

A mutual agreement was reached and contracts were drawn for her then SSDCA Vice-President to assume all responsibilities and operations of the Shiloh Shepherd dog club – Jareth stated> “please provide a reference, it appears that a separate club was opened”

[2] T. Barber wrote: "I am entering into an agreement with Gary Allison and Dan Spinner. They understand my vision for this club, and have committed themselves to attaining those goals! Personally I have come to the end of "my rope" and need to pursue my new business in order to replenish the funds I have depleted, as well as to provide more income, so I can attend a lot more shows in the future! They have my full support and will manage the re-structure and operation of the club. Wendy will remain as Secretary of the club, reporting to Gary and Dan. Member Marcia Turner will take over the duty of publishing the Newsletter, and Judy Vaneman will become the new Show Director."

Our version does not say that Mr. Allison took over the SSDCA, we stated he assumed all responsibilities and operations of the Shiloh Shepherd dog club. As noted in above, he took over the re-structure and operations. The name was changed, but the membership was retained, it was re-structured.

"Many ISSDC members and long-time breeders chose to remain with the ISSDC club." Jareth stated> “avoid weasel words like "Many", provide numbers and facts please”

[3] Per the SSDCA/ISSR website it shows how many breeders left, when and why (per the Breed Founders own reasoning). You will note that at the time the ISSDC became active, there where 49 active breeders listed. Of the 49, 25 stayed with the ISSDC. We can change "many" to more than half.

"Due to inter-club conflicts" – Jareth stated> “this is misleading at best given this letter [1] “

That letter was only ONE part of selected letters written at that time. There were many issues to these disputes, including her demand for a religious symbol ("the fish") to be placed in the new ISSDC logo, which offended some Jewish members and other members. The ISSDC represented ALL members and chose not to offend any of them which lead to the below facts. As you can see, Tina was demanding and making threats immediately which were all part of the problems facing the club and its members.

[4] Quote: "Tina immediately mailed out a letter to all of the members informing them of the history behind the name “Shiloh” and the reasons for the importance of the Fish in the Logo In July 1997 the ISSDC has their first meeting at Grand Island. Many members traveled to this meeting to “support the “fish”. Although the issue was not in the agenda, Tina finally stood up and made a public statement, that if the Fish was removed, she would not even remain as a member. "

[5] Quote: "Even though it is a very personal issue, we feel that we must address the statement made by Tina at this meeting. "If the fish is out, so am I". We have asked Tina to allow the use of the origins book by the club. Through this book the history of the Shiloh Shepherd is given, and Tina's story is told. The further use of any religious ideas, icons, or interpretation will not be decided in the formation of the club, but will be left to the membership to decide. We hope that Tina will accept the majority vote and be a member regardless of the outcome, as the rest of us will. If it is to be a members club, that is their decision to make. If the best interests of the dogs always takes precedence, she should join us and help to keep it so."

[6] While there were questions about "her" new rules, they were not because they were strict, they were because so many of them had huge, unprecedented fees applied to them. Rules such as $1,000.00 fee a month if you submitted a litter application after 70 days., or a $3.00 a day fine if the owner of a puppy submitted its papers after the 210 day requirement. These are just a couple examples where unrealalistic fines would be imposed.

focusing on health, temperament and litter-mate information" – Jareth stated> “avoid self promotion “

"requiring additional health testing" – Jareth stated> “please provide a reference“

[7] View Permanent Adult Breeding requirements. You can compare them to any of the other Shiloh registries rules and you will see they require adult hip certification (2 years of age or over), and they require heart certification. None of the other registries require this testing.

"with a mission emphasizing unity and shared vision, including Shiloh Shepherd health, promotion, advancement and protection" – Jareth said “avoid self promotion”

This is a mission statement, a goal, same as what you wrote in the first part of the article "Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood in Germany; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo."

"complete Shiloh pedigrees obtained in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP)" – Jareth stated> “please provide a reference and clarify "obtained"”

Tina Barber personally gave this original 88 page document to a fellow “VIB” (Very Important Breeder). This document is dated 3/31/1996. If needed, a page of this document can be scanned to verify the date it was produced.

"Additional information about this breed can be found in several all-breed publications, websites, and books. The Shiloh Shepherd breed has grown in number and popularity, and it continues to be embraced by rare breed organizations and dog fanciers alike." – Jareth stated> “doesn’t really belong in history, maybe a future of the breed type section would be appropriate”

Jareth said> “Is there a reason for excluding the United Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club Registry?”

Since this is a section about history, the fact that they never got off the ground and thus had absolutely no effect on the History of the breed, it has no merit.

Jareth said> “Is there a reason for excluding the bid for UKC recognition? This seems highly relevant to a breed history.”

The "bid" was not made by any club or registry, it was sought by a few breeders. Further, the reason they were denied was because the UKC denied any new breed acceptance that year unlike how it was presented.

Reference letter:

From: Mark Threlfall

To: judy@...

Cc: Wayne Cavanaugh; Tony Vacha; Michelle Morgan; Denise Vavla; Brad Allison;

Katie Oliphant

Sent: 10/22/2004 9:25:14 AM

Subject: Re: Draft letter to UKC

Dear Ms. Vaneman,

Thank you for your letter of inquiry regarding the registration of your Shiloh Shepherds.At the current time, the UKC is refining the application procedure and requirements for admission of new breeds into our registry. Until this new process is in place, the United Kennel Club has placed a moratorium on the admission of new breeds into our registry. We thank you for your interest in the United Kennel Club.

Sincerely,

Mark E. Threlfall

Vice President, Dog Events

United Kennel Club, Inc.

Jareth stated: “Could you please do me the courtesy of clarifying what, if anything you disagree with in my proposal? It would be rather difficult to work on it otherwise. Also, do you intend to provide data on the number of dogs being registered so that could be added to the history as well? “

Re: Providing registry data:

We did not include the number of dogs being registered, which are a present and ongoing process which change daily; thus it is not historical in nature. Further we cannot understand why these statistics would be used in the article.

Furthermore, statistics should be verifiable. Have the 4000 dogs the ISSR is claiming as registered, been verified as there are a number of discrepancies on the editors own website.

The ISSR’s number of 4000 dogs is contradictory, at best, from different postings on the SSDCA/ISSR web site. There is a link to ISSR registered litters and it does not add up to 4000, rather more like 1820 [8]. We can discuss this further if required.

[9] Quote: "Although we now have 2427 Shilohs in our database we also have over 45,000 ancestors, enabling us to run the most intense detailed Inbreeding Coefficient reports ever possible. Out of the 1562 puppies born into the ISSR as of the end of our last fiscal year (9/00) we have registered only 1162 Shiloh Shepherds via the TCCP."

As seen, there are often puppies born that never even get registered; in the above case, approximately 26%. So, by the SSDCA/ISSRr website’s report of only 1820 (through 2004) puppies born into the ISSR over the past 14 years, not even taking into consideration the percentage that never got registered, there is no way in one year that there were 2180 Shilohs registered; it is impossible. Inaccurate statistics, like these, have no place in this article.

The data listing 45,000 dogs came with a commercially available software program that we all have. Claims that the ISSR has full detailed LMX or other data on all of those dogs is extremely questionable and requires verification in order to be included in the article.

Furthermore, you asked us to tell you WHY the other registries were formed. We did, but you didn’t include any of them in the draft proposal you presented, yet left unverified reasons pertaining to the ISSR and the TCCP.

Jareth’s history proposal: "… but after difficulty with standards verification, the SSDCA decided to open the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). Due to some documentation problems with the original ISSR registrar, a special program was designed by The Complete Computer Place (TCCP) to process registry data for the ISSR..."

Re: Disagreements with your proposal

Paragraph one:

“In 1997, the SSDCA was inactive for a year. During that time, then SSDCA Vice-President, Gary Allison, accepted responsibility for running a club for the breed and so the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. In 1998, due to a disagreement with the strict ISSR rules, the ISSDC announced they would open their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. The SSDCA reopened at this time.”

Misleading, the SSDCA didn't just become inactive; Tina Barber was going to close it since she could no longer afford to operate it. Further, it was not closed for a year, rather 5 months when Tina broke the contract by re-opening the club. The ISSDC wasn’t just "a" club, it was “the parent club” for the breed and it was agreed upon and endorsed by Tina. (Reference link provided above)

See above comments on why the ISSDC registry started. The reasons were not because of "strict ISSR rules", nor exclusively because of any type of rules. The issues were many, thus our wording “due to inter-club conflicts”.

Paragraph Two:

“In 2004, the ISSDC was reorganized as a parent club for the NSBR, the SSBA and the TSSR. The ISSDC petitioned the UKC for recognition of the Shiloh Shepherd, but was denied. Today, the databases of these registries contain Shiloh pedigrees taken in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), and pedigrees of 45,000 GSD ancestors, but no LMX data.”

The ISSDC did NOT petition the UKC; see above explanation and reason for denial. If you are going to include anything about UKC then we feel it should be accurately portrayed, and why it was denied.

The way you have written the Shiloh pedigrees were "taken" implies wrong-doing. They were given to a VIB in 1996 (see comments above).

Your inclusion of NO LMX is simply untrue. We are shocked you accepted that "suggestion" without asking the community about its validity since it pertains to our registries. The inclusion of that “suggestion” for a neutral proposal is mind boggling. Gwyllgi 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, I did the best with the information available. Unfortunately, little other than the websites for the other registries exists so that doesn't leave much reference material. Most of what is posted on this talk page is personal knowledge and thus original research; unfortunately, its against policy to include those types of things. Perhaps if we strip out anything that can't be specifically verified and/or agreed on, we could come closer? I'm getting pulled and yelled at from so many directions, I think I'll happily step out of the proposal making business. Heck, I tried to improve the health section of the article, even going so far as creating another article to further the information and still there's complaints. *sigh* I can only go on what's out there guys -- I have no personal knowledge of any of this. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, we're not yelling at you. Please don't interpret it that way as that is not the way it's intended at all. But, there is a great deal of concern when a website that lists non-ISSR affiliated registries numerous times as puppymillers, slivers, backyardbreeders, evil doers, money grubbers, is inserted as source material for this article, and goes so far as to have a "Wall of Shame" to attack individuals. All of those links scream original research and POV.

To get overly specific in the history section means you must find an agreement between BOTH parties as to why the separation occured. Those that left are equally involved here as those that remained. Whose version of why the separation occured is correct? Obviously each side will provide their own reasonings.

A number of people have spent a great number of hours on this article, as have you, and to see their versions of the story (as they actually experienced it and therefore can be considered "experts" on the subject) twisted and distorted referencing an obviously biased position is troubling, and hence some visible frustration.

Yes, 100 percent agreed that items that cannot be verified OR agreed on should be removed. The Wiki won't be the sole source of information for those wishing to learn about the breed, hopefully it will be a starting point and will lead visitors to the various clubs/registries when they can read the various POVs and come up with their own opinions. There were some fair suggestions made in the first two straw polls for a history section. The first as you may recall even had support from a number of editors involved with the Dog Breed Project here on Wiki (Trysha & Elf to name a few).

Regarding the health section, it was frustrating that an editors own original research and program was inserted into the article without any discussion, and there was no mention at all of the most commonly accepted forms of health testings by a neutral source (OFA/PennHip/CERF). But before we head down that road I suppose we should finish the history section. Gwyllgi 10:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you'll recall, the first straw poll was only whether or not to include the other registries and to do so without POV. It was rather a reaffirmation of the Wikipedia policies and I'd hope that's what were trying to work toward. As far as the yelling, I'm referring to a number of private comments I get daily and some rather rude and incivil language being used in them -- I certainly wasn't trying to infer that everyone discussing the article is behaving in that manner; I'm sorry if it came off that way.

As far as the health section goes, I completely agree that it needs further work. However, the other registries have also suggested they use LMX so it seemed appropriate to explain what that was; the link provided is the only reference I currently have that defines the program. The genetic task force would also seem to merit inclusion since it is unique to the breed and is in addition to the standard types of health testing done -- the OFA/Penn etc could also be mentioned since breeders also use those organizations in determining health factors. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Would quoting word for word, statements made on the ISSR/SSDCA websites be considered copyright violation? The following is posted on every ISSR/SSDCA site: "All Pictures and All Articles written by Tina M. Barber affiliated with this site are products and are secured by copyright and may not be used without written permission of the owner of this site. Site owned by Karen Ursel on behalf of the SSDCA, Inc." SandraSS 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandra. Quotations used for discussion/education purposes does not consitute copyright infringement at all and falls under the "fair use" policy of the US Copyright act (Section 107). No different than a newpaper columnist using excerpts from a book when doing a book review. Gwyllgi 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there something in the article that's been copied from those websites? Here we only use prose from other sources directly if the source is public domain or released under the GFDL (see WP:COPY), since copying directly from another source is considered a violation of their copyright. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: our proposal for the 2nd section of the history, there are no quotes. Also:

Link #6 quote taken directly from hard copies of this document sent to members and is in our possession. Posted as an online reference point only

Link #7 quote taken directly from hard copies of this document sent to members and is in our possession. Posted as an online reference point only

Link #8 references the SSDCA/ISSR website but does not quote.

Link #9 was not written by Tina (Wendy Fullerton, current ISSDC member). Quote taken from hard copy in our possession.

Link #10 quote taken directly from hard copies of this document sent to members and is in our possession. Posted as online reference point only

Link #11 references the SSDCA/ISSR website but does not quote.

Link #12 references the TSSR website but does not quote.

Link #13 references the SSDCA/ISSR website but does not quote.

Link #14 Posted as online reference point only to explain our proposal, not for use in article or our history section proposal. If it violates copyright it was done without intent or malice and if so, we will remove it immediately.

69.173.135.114 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Thank you. MilesD.

Reference: [Wikipedia Fair Use Text] which states "Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use.". This is also covered under section 107 of the US Copyright act and can be summarized on the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use page [10]:

Quote: "1. Comment and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

   * quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
   * summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
   * copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
   * copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C.". End Quote.

If editors are not prepared to having their "original research" sources challenged & quoted then they not be posted (as done numerous times) and used in the discussion of this article, otherwise, it appears to be covered and applicable in this discussion.

Quotes from documents under copyright have been used frequently throughout this article by many editors as they are being used to support an argument and are hence covered by the Fair Use policy (from both a legal and a Wikipedia position). For example, editor Barber posted commentary from a document under copyright a day ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_7#Second_section_of_history and provided they are used to illustrate a point and for educational/discussion purposes, appear quite valid. Gwyllgi 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) .

I would be happy to provide Jareth with a copy of the letter that we were sent by Wayne Cavanaugh, the owner of the UKC, dated 10/15/04, and stating:

"Dear Karen Ursel,

I have received your impressive letter and email regarding “Shiloh Shepherd Dogs” and the United Kennel Club, Inc. Unfortunately, it is predicated on totally erroneous and unfounded information. Quite simply, “Shiloh Shepherd Dogs” are not a UKC registered breed and there is no current plan, and has never been a plan, to make it one. " Trillhill 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the point.

(Merriam-Webster definition: predicated > "based")

(Merriam-Webster definition: erroneous > "mistaken)

(Merriam-Webster definition: unfounded > "groundless")

Some ISSR/SSDCA members sent letters and petitions to Mr. Cavanaugh, the President of the UKC, protesting their perception that the ISSDC was seeking UKC admittance of the Shiloh Shepherd.

TrillHill quotes Mr. Cavanaugh responding to the Secretary of the SSDCA Board of Directors:

"I have received YOUR impressive letter and emailing regarding Shiloh Shepherd Dogs and the United Kennel Club, Inc. Unfortunately, IT <your letter> is predicated (based) on totally erroneous (mistaken) and unfounded (groundless) information. Quite simply, “Shiloh Shepherd Dogs” are not a UKC registered breed and there is no current plan, and has never been a plan, to make it one."

This is why the ISSDC registries do not accept the inclusion of the statement "The ISSDC petitioned the UKC for recognition of the Shiloh Shepherd, but was denied" in the history section of this article. Neither the ISSDC nor its registries applied for UKC admittance and Mr. Cavanaugh responded to the recipient of his letter to say her letter is based on mistaken and groundless information and to confirm he knows of no current plans between his organization and any organizations affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd to do so.

In addition, in his response to an individual , Mark E. Threlfall states that the UKC is delaying any and all admissions for new breeds until the implementation of new UKC admission processes, NOT because of any letter(s) UKC received protesting this particular (Shiloh Shepherd) inquiry from her. MilesD. 16:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we currently have no verifiable source that shows who, if anyone, asked the UKC for acceptance of the breed, it shouldn't appear in the article and was removed from the re-draft I posted below. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Per the SSDCA/ISSR website it shows how many breeders left, when and why (per the Breed Founders own reasoning). You will note that at the time the ISSDC became active, there where 49 active breeders listed. Of the 49, 25 stayed with the ISSDC. We can change "many" to more than half.

Please note that there IS a difference between a person that "joined" the "breeders program - school" and one that actually BRED a litter! Karen has prepared a detailed outline showing EXACT numbers! MaShiloh 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

At Tina's request I have reviewed the information in our database and prepared an accurate accounting of the number of actual breeders (defined as per the dictionary as those breeding animals) who left the SSDCA in 1997-98, registered all subsequent litters elsewhere and are continuing to breed dogs being represented as Shiloh Shepherds. I think you will see that a very different picture emerges.

Since Tina felt that the information should be shared with the entire Shiloh fancy I have put together a web page giving the names of these breeders, the year(s) and number of litters produced within the ISSR. Please visit http://www.shilohshepherds.info/otherBreeders.htm. If you feel that anyone has been left out who fits the following criteria:

1. bred litters within the ISSR prior to 1998

2. left in 1997-98 and never registered another litter within the ISSR

3. are still breeding and producing litters of dogs being represented as Shiloh Shepherds)

please let me know.

I think that when looking at the actual data we can change "many" breeders to "a few".

I am also preparing other documented data pages that will clearly dispell the other objections that the "other" "editors" have raised.

Trillhill 12:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

While there were questions about "her" new rules, they were not because they were strict, they were because so many of them had huge, unprecedented fees applied to them. Rules such as $1,000.00 fee a month if you submitted a litter application after 70 days., or a $3.00 a day fine if the owner of a puppy submitted its papers after the 210 day requirement. These are just a couple examples where unrealalistic fines would be imposed.

Can you show me proof that even ONE person ever paid those fines??? the reason behind them was to encourage people to process their papers in a timely fashion in order for the ISSR to collect more LMX data! After all, without that information, that this breed was based on to begin with ... we would NOT be able to produce the best possible progeny!!! MaShiloh 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The data listing 45,000 dogs came with a commercially available software program that we all have. Claims that the ISSR has full detailed LMX or other data on all of those dogs is extremely questionable and requires verification in order to be included in the article.

THESE STATEMENTS ARE EXTREMELY MISLEADING!!! Obviously you have been taking bits & pieces of information from various sources & twisting them to fit *your* little mold!!! Instead of going into a LONG reply here, I have prepared a DETAILED web page that not only lists the EXACT data regarding all of these dogs (and where the numbers fit) but also clearly separates the information we have presented, via the many articles I have written, into the PROPER categories!!!

LMX does not stand for "pedigrees" It represents detailed genetic information regarding that particular dog!! Details like height, weight, color, coat, temperament, hip rating, D&R info, etc. etc. that are NOT available via the FREE commercially available pedigree databases!!!

BTW ... YES, MY NEW ARTICLE *DOES* PROVIDE FULL VERIFICATION!!! MaShiloh 17:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Misleading, the SSDCA didn't just become inactive; Tina Barber was going to close it since she could no longer afford to operate it. Further, it was not closed for a year, rather 5 months when Tina broke the contract by re-opening the club. The ISSDC wasn’t just "a" club, it was “the parent club” for the breed and it was agreed upon and endorsed by Tina. (Reference link provided above)

I agree that the ISSR "recognized" the ISSDC as the "parent club" FOR THE 5 MONTHS PRIOR TO GARY STARTING HIS OWN REGISTRY!! However, as soon as that happened ... the agreement was broken & the SSDCA had to step back into the picture!! This was all agreed upon right from the start .... the SSDCA would STEP ASIDE (not close down) for 1 year, in order to give Gary a chance to prove that he could handle the "people politics" better the I could!!! MaShiloh 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The ISSDC did NOT petition the UKC; see above explanation and reason for denial. If you are going to include anything about UKC then we feel it should be accurately portrayed, and why it was denied.

OK .. the leaders of the "newly formed ISSDC .. then called just the ISSC applied for UKC recognition ... We DO have the documentation to prove this!! MaShiloh 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The way you have written the Shiloh pedigrees were "taken" implies wrong-doing. They were given to a VIB in 1996 (see comments above).

WHO WAS IT?? WHEN??? HOW??? MaShiloh 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW ... just for the record ... the *alpha* listings (stud books) don't have the LMX data listed in them .. just the pedigree data ... that is also available via FREE database searches all over the web!!! MaShiloh 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your inclusion of NO LMX is simply untrue. We are shocked you accepted that "suggestion" without asking the community about its validity since it pertains to our registries. The inclusion of that “suggestion” for a neutral proposal is mind boggling. Gwyllgi 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

IF YOU HAVE LMX DATA ... PROVE IT!!!!! MaShiloh 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Another draft

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Alright, since neither of the versions posted earlier were acceptable to everyone, I've tried again to make some changes and merge the two a bit. Please let me know what other concerns you have (or feel free to rewrite again yourself).

In 1997, due to financial difficulties, the SSDCA was closed for a period of time. Then SSDCA Vice-President, Gary Allison, accepted responsibility for running a club for the breed and so the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. In 1998, due to several disagreements, the ISSDC annouced they would open their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. The SSDCA was reopened shortly afterwards. More than half of the breeders chose to remain with the ISSDC.

In 2001, the ISSDC and its registry were closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed its registry functions. Also in 2001, the National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established. During 2002, The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) and the United Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club Registry (USSDCR) were established. The USSDCR closed in 2003.

In 2004, with a mission emphasizing unity and shared vision, the ISSDC was reorganized as a parent club for the NSBR, the SSBA and the TSSR. Today, the databases of these registries contain Shiloh pedigrees taken in 1996 from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), as well as the pedigrees of 45,000 GSD ancestors.

As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries.

.:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree with this suggestion. There is some information provided but not all, which I find quite misleading. There is a lot more to the history of the Shiloh than is being represented by this proposal. I would hope that the ISSR/SSDCA representatives will be given the opportunity to provide their view of what happened. SandraSS 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would discuss what changes you'd like to see made so we can move forward. Unless you're planning on writing another version? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Less is Best

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

The term less is best seems to really apply to this article. It is acknowledge by everyone that this group may never be able to agree on a variety of issues.

A wise person recently said that the "disagreements" between Shiloh people probably predates WIKI and will probably continue long after.

With this in mind I would suggest that less is best for this article as it is becoming painfully clear that some will not agree on a compromise.

While it is admirable Jareth that you are trying to expand sections of the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article, additions of embedded links to either parties original works and thus their personal web sites will only make the process longer and met with more contention.

While I appreciate the fact that Wiki is trying to expand other dog related articles, at this time maybe things should be left simple as they are currently with the other breed articles.

Concerns with the embedded links: GTF link :The GTF is a group that collects information but since none of that information is openly shared with Shiloh breeders or owners, even within the ISSR, its productivity is limited at best. The program may sound great, but if it's results are not openly shared it does not serve the majority of the Shiloh population. The health survey was done in 2000 and has not been updated since the original survery that only included 351 dogs out of thousands. It is original work and its function is misleading.

The LMX link: It may have been something to add if the page did not include various links that contain hostile, hasassing, POV about anyone not affiliated with Ms Barber's organization

So what I am suggesting is that in this case, while we are still trying to come to consensus on a history article, that we use the less is best thinking. Adding embedded links to either parties original work and personal web sites in the body of any part of this article is not neutral and is obviously going to be met with contention.

At this time listing just the health issues surrounding this breed is in no way different than the majority of other WIKI dog articles and should be acceptable so as not to stir the hornets nest on a second point of this article.

This group is by far not the only group in the world that may never be able to agree. At this time trying to expand past the bare facts may just not be the best solution. The first paragraph of the Health section should suffice as it is the same as most all other WIKI dog articles.

With the Shiloh article, I propose that Less is Best, keep it neutral and show fainess and equality to all. Each group has links to their personal web sites at the bottom, and interested parties can utilize those links to form their own opinions about the breed, the clubs, and the various registries.

We have all spent countless hours on this article, and we are all very tired and frustrated and now adding one more dispute is not best for anyone.

I am asking that you consider my request to remove the second paragraph of the Health issue that you recently editted so we may go back to finishing the History section and put this to bed.

Thanks a bunch ShenandoahShilohs 16:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to have to point this out again, but articles like Hitler and George W. Bush are long, in depth, and support multiple POVs to balance the articles. If editors can agree on *those* articles, I refuse to believe that the same cannot be done here. Unfortunately a lot of the parties involved here don't want to work within the framework and policies of Wikipedia, but that doesn't change those policies. Its best to drop your POV at the Wiki door. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thought -- if we don't reference the health survey which estimates carrier frequency of genetic disorders among the breed, what other reference would you suggest as a better source for the "common health problems" assertion? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In that vein, do we have any other reference that would explain LMX and doesn't contain the objectionable links? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you felt my post was anything but an attempt at being a voice of reason. I personally feel that sometimes it is beneficial to just step back and let the waters calm than to push forward in a storm.

I have spent hours reviewing and attempting to understand the framework of Wiki policies, such as; verifiable sources, reliable sources, vanity articles and NPOV. The articles you references do follow Wiki policies in their writings. These two subjects have years and years of multiple third party reliable verifiable sources to make the relevant points. They are not based on original research and vanity articles. Unfortunately, the Shiloh Shepherd Dog does not have these sources.

That is why I had suggested less is best rather than to continue to build an article without the sources Wiki policies call for.

I would like to ask one innocent question? How can an article have multiple POV's if it is suggested that the editors drop their POV at the door. I am not trying to be argumentative, just still in the Wiki learning process.

Once again, I was just trying to be a voice of reason in a sea of controvery and frustration. For now I guess I will use my time in a productive manner and take my Shilohs for a long car ride.

Cheers ShenandoahShilohs 18:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dropping your own POV at the door is different than reporting the facts of different viewpoints in an article. We should describe the views, but not advocate or detract from them in the article. To help clarify, here's what the NPOV policy has to say about including multiple points of view:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

If the sources we have aren't adequate, or are too biased, then we can remove those facts and unfortunately that means the article suffers. Instead of reverting the entire health section, would removing the GTF and LMX information pending further discussion work? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. ShenandoahShilohs 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, got it all out (I think). I guess featured article status just isn't in the cards. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth and ShenandoahShilohs, I am not understanding why the info and link to the GTF and the Health Survey is not suitable for inclusion.

Also, if the non-ISSR registries do not wish to have LMX included in the section dealing with their history, please do not remove mention of LMX regarding ISSR history, information.

CorinneCorfil 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I felt they were, which is why I included them in the Health section rewrite, however, after several complaints, they were removed so further discussion could be held here. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 04:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Corinne. The links you originally had in the health section may not be relevant to the other registries, but they are quite relevant to the ISSR. Maybe you should clarify that the links provided are only pertinent to dogs registered within the ISSR. SandraSS 00:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the major point is, they're quite relevent to the breed and its health status, which is why I inluded them. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The LMX link: It may have been something to add if the page did not include various links that contain hostile, hasassing, POV about anyone not affiliated with Ms Barber's organization

Glad you said that ... I will prepare a special page LMX & THE SHILOH SHEPHERD ... that only provides the history & data regarding this program ;-) MaShiloh 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

At this time listing just the health issues surrounding this breed is in no way different than the majority of other WIKI dog articles and should be acceptable so as not to stir the hornets nest on a second point of this article.

OK .. what's wrong with THIS link?? http://www.shilohgtf.com/ MaShiloh 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

With the Shiloh article, I propose that Less is Best, keep it neutral and show fainess and equality to all. Each group has links to their personal web sites at the bottom, and interested parties can utilize those links to form their own opinions about the breed, the clubs, and the various registries.

IMHO ... I think we should seperate the *history* into 3 parts ...

a) Breed History

b) Club History

c) Registry History

What do the rest of you think?? Nobody should object to some honest representation ... right??? MaShiloh 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

New history draft

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Here is a proposed draft that addresses recent concerns and questions. Our intention was to make everything verifiable and "just the facts," as with encyclopedia entries. Our hope is that it will move all of us closer to consensus.

Again, please add comments after the end of the section.

In 1974, Tina Barber, of Shiloh Shepherd Kennel in New York State, began developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood in Germany: dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo. After years of selective breeding and genetic research, she separated her dogs from the AKC in 1990.

In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA) was incorporated. Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC (Federation of International Canines). In 1992, the SSDCA opened the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). A special program was designed by The Complete Computer Place (TCCP) to process registry data for the ISSR. Along with a Shiloh database, they also maintain a database with more than 45,000 ancestors in order to properly calculate various factors within the limited gene pool.

In 1997, due to financial difficulties, the SSDCA was closed for a period of time. Then SSDCA Vice-President, Gary Allison, accepted responsibility for running the club for the breed, and so the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created.

The SSDCA was reopened in 1998. More than half of the breeders remained with the ISSDC. In 1998, due to inter-club/registry disagreements, the ISSDC opened their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr.

In 2001, the ISSDC and its registry were closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed its registry functions. Also in 2001, the National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established. During 2002, The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) and the United Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club Registry (USSDCR) were established. The USSDCR closed in 2003.

In 2004, with a mission emphasizing unity and shared vision, the ISSDC was reorganized as a parent club for the NSBR, the SSBA, and the TSSR. Today, the databases of these registries contain Shiloh pedigrees originating from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), as well as the pedigrees of more than 45,000 GSD ancestors.

As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries. S Scott 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

a few comments on a few sections: Since in this re-write the origin of the ISSDC was due to financial difficulties and the closing of the SSDCA, the reason for the closing of the ISSDCr should also be stated. To be consistent, reasons for the origin/beginning of the NSBR, the TSSR and USSDCR should be stated. A statement as to why the USSDCR closed should also be included.

The statement "Today, the databases of these registries contain Shiloh pedigrees originating from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), as well as the pedigrees of more than 45,000 GSD ancestors. " is misleading and lacks clarity. I have no doubt that the delineated non-ISSR registries do contain data that originated from the TCCP. For accuracy, the statement should read to show that those entities began with information gathered from former ISSR registered dogs and that additional information has been added over the years from the offspring and OTX bred under those entities' rules and regs. As originally written the statement implies that all entities have the exact same information on all the same dogs.

For clarity sake, there needs to be some type of statement explaining the aim/purpose of each of the non-ISSR entities. A brief statement to show the differences/similarities amongst the TSSR, NSBR and SSBA would be educational to the public audience of Wiki.

Corinne Corfil 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly re: the starting/closing down of registries and clubs. If the reason for the SSDCA shutting down and ISSDC starting is offered then the reasons for WHY the ISSDC and its registry shut down and WHY the other numerous registries started/closed. Something else that is not mentioned is the start and close of the USSDClub.

BTW, I think Tina has a good idea in suggesting the history section be divided into 3 sections breed-club-registry. SandraSS 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

CORINNE SAID

For clarity sake, there needs to be some type of statement explaining the aim/purpose of each of the non-ISSR entities. A brief statement to show the differences/similarities amongst the TSSR, NSBR and SSBA would be educational to the public audience of Wiki

TINA BARBER REPLIES

I fully agree! If the Wiki is going to play *fair* then the same verifiable data should be requested from both sides!! I have prepared a page that should be very clear regarding the LMX program .... how it started ... what it consists of .. etc.. etc... We have also tried to include "outside" sources for more/clearer verification!! If there is something you don't understand .. please ASK!

Furthermore, after trying to answer the silly "statements" (accusations?) made by representatives of the "multiple registries" regarding the ISSR data .... actually quoting bits & pieces from OUR web sites, without clarifying the *exact* source (was it about GTF data, LMX data, pedigree data, dogs born into the ISSR prior to the TCCP contract .. those born after, those that were upgraded, pups that expired) .... I mean REALLY!!! Anyone can quote all kinds of numbers (out of context) & make them say whatever they are trying to prove!! I have tried very hard to present ACCURATE data regarding each subject ... but to avoid any future confusion I have prepared http://www.shilohshepherds.info/numbers.htm If anyone here has additional questions .. please feel free to ask!!!! MaShiloh 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne and Sandra - The ISSDC registries' editors have had many of the same thoughts, and we're getting together a revised draft. To be consistent and neutral, the new draft won't mention any reasons for any of the clubs or registries opening or closing. In addition, we're deleting the last pieces of info that aren't verifiable. Regards S Scott 02:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 02:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't consider that *neutral* ... more like *cowardly* in my book!! What's wrong with presenting the TRUTH???? MaShiloh 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research vs third party verification

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The following are perfect examples of why there should never be original research used and why third party references are so vital. When it is "original" research that research can be changed and manipulated to present the writers view point at will.

<<Please note that there IS a difference between a person that "joined" the "breeders program - school" and one that actually BRED a litter! Karen has prepared a detailed outline showing EXACT numbers! MaShiloh 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) At Tina's request I have reviewed the information in our database and prepared an accurate accounting of the number of actual breeders (defined as per the dictionary as those breeding animals'')>>

In this case the poster will now provide a POV web link as to what they consider to be a breeder to prove their POV against others. Yet using their own argument that a breeder is one that has produced animals then one could wonder why they also have a web page listing the following as "Licensed Breeders" "http://www.shilohshepherds.org/licensedBreeders.htm

This web site lists 23 licensed breeders, yet per the posters own definition, there are only 14 that have breed a litter. Out of that 14, only 9 have had more than 1 litter. You can review it further and see that only 16 are listed as "active" breeders, and out of that 16, 6 have never produced a litter, and 4 have had only one litter.

This is just one example of how a poster can tweak data to their own POV. One POV is there are 23 Licensed Breeders, and another's could be there are only 6 active breeders, those producing more than one litter of puppies.

Stats are easily manipulated to the desire of the poster.

One may review this POV web page and think wow, yet this is a manipulation of data. It does not state that using these same conditions, one could surmise that other than Tina Barber there are absolutely no ISSR breeders that had a litter prior to 1998 and are still actively breeding.

It also misleads to the fact that many of the breeders listed during the 1997 Club split that did not have litters at that time have gone on to produce Shiloh Shepherd litters both within the ISSR and outside of the ISSR.

One more example:

A poster has made a claim that the SSDCA was re-opened after and due to the fact that the ISSDC had started a registry. Upon further investigation of the posters claims, one could go directly to the posters web pages and learn that is not accurate;

http://www.shilohshepherds.info/formerSSDCAOfficers.htm

"quote"In January 1998, the SSDCA was revived. The following board members were appointed by Tina Barber to serve as directors until the next scheduled election, August 1999

http://www.shilohshepherds.info/clubsplit.htm

"Quote"The New Club Announces their New Registry (Feb '98) Part I (PDF) Part II (PDF) Part III (PDF)

One can clearly see that this information disproves the claims previously stated, but because it is "original research" it could be changed, or removed to present their previous statement of fact.

These are just two example of why we have asked that original research, personal web sites, not be used in the body of this article, or to prove POV claims. Web sites are too easily manipulated to serve the POV of a writer and are often done so.

ShenandoahShilohs 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

More BS ... Patty, you were there when Gary announced his *new* registry ... do I have to get others to sign statements to that effect?? That's when I brought the SSDCA, Inc. back into the picture ... not after the Grand Island standoff when I left *his* club .. but after I found out that he was starting a registry!! Granted, he didn't publish it till Feb .. but I have proof that the plan was in the works as of Nov. 97!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be safe to say that no one would know anything about these dogs if it weren't for the numerous pages of articles that Tina has written throughout the years and information she has shared via her web sites? All of which is considered original research and POV. SandraSS 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh Patty, give it up!! If everyone that walks on this earth, joins a club, visits a show, or even joins a school is called a *breeder* then everyone's stat's are way off!! I have 1087 members on our forum .. should I call all of *them* "breeders"??? I think that if you check the Wiki .. some place it's got to clearly show that only a person that BRED a litter -- is a *breeder* What about the folks that go to a car lot to test drive a new car?? How many of them buy it?? Can you call all of them "buyers"?? Some are just "potential" buyers!!! Same with our LB's .. some may never breed a litter ... but they signed up to get licensed & will stay there till they leave ... period!!!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sandra, What you say is true but you cannot say what Tina writes is not bias( though understandable) towards her POV. Wiki is trying to be unbias IMHO. Saginaw 04:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Very true Sandra! No one would "know anything" about these dogs otherwise, initially.

However, you will find that many breeders with years of experience in 'working' with these dogs have grown far beyond the 'knowing anything' stage. It would be safe to say that Tina's articles and information serve to peak the interest of those who are looking into the breed. However, far more information and data has been collected by those people with years of experience in actually 'working' with the breed, than is currently shared on her 'original research and POV' laden website(s). Nonetheless, whether it’s Tina's information, or anyone else's information, it's still all 'original research and POV' by Wiki definition. Shiloh Supporter

YOU SAID

However, far more information and data has been collected by those people with years of experience in actually 'working' with the breed,

Excuse me ... I am STILL here, and I still have the data that I have been collecting for over 40 years now!!! If they have "so much" to share ... WHERE IS IT???? Where are the reports that PROVE what they have learned?? Where have their articles been published ... besides their own sites??? PLEASE SHARE THE STATS FOR EACH OF THOSE "EXPERTS" I have a Bio ... where can I find theirs??? MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[The above comment has been edited ie: statements removed and replies to those statements moved. This has made the replies confusing. For clarity sake, I have re-posted the above comment below to before changes were made]

The following are perfect examples of why there should never be original research used and why third party references are so vital. When it is "original" research that research can be changed and manipulated to present the writers view point at will.

<<Please note that there IS a difference between a person that "joined" the "breeders program - school" and one that actually BRED a litter! Karen has prepared a detailed outline showing EXACT numbers! MaShiloh 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) At Tina's request I have reviewed the information in our database and prepared an accurate accounting of the number of actual breeders (defined as per the dictionary as those breeding animals'')>>

In this case the poster will now provide a POV web link as to what they consider to be a breeder to prove their POV against others. Yet using their own argument that a breeder is one that has produced animals then one could wonder why they also have a web page listing the following as "Licensed Breeders" "http://www.shilohshepherds.org/licensedBreeders.htm

This web site lists 23 licensed breeders, yet per the posters own definition, there are only 14 that have breed a litter. Out of that 14, only 9 have had more than 1 litter. You can review it further and see that only 16 are listed as "active" breeders, and out of that 16, 6 have never produced a litter, and 4 have had only one litter.

This is just one example of how a poster can tweak data to their own POV. One POV is there are 23 Licensed Breeders, and another's could be there are only 6 active breeders, those producing more than one litter of puppies.

Stats are easily manipulated to the desire of the poster.

Oh Patty, give it up!! If everyone that walks on this earth, joins a club, visits a show, or even joins a school is called a *breeder* then everyone's stat's are way off!! I have 1087 members on our forum .. should I call all of *them* "breeders"??? I think that if you check the Wiki .. some place it's got to clearly show that only a person that BRED a litter -- is a *breeder* What about the folks that go to a car lot to test drive a new car?? How many of them buy it?? Can you call all of them "buyers"?? Some are just "potential" buyers!!! Same with our LB's .. some may never breed a litter ... but they signed up to get licensed & will stay there till they leave ... period!!!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

<<<Please visit http://www.shilohshepherds.info/otherBreeders.htm. If you feel that anyone has been left out who fits the following criteria: '1. bred litters within the ISSR prior to 1998 2. left in 1997-98 and never registered another litter within the ISSR 3. are still breeding and producing litters of dogs being represented as Shiloh Shepherds) please let me know. >>>'

One may review this POV web page and think wow, yet this is a manipulation of data. It does not state that using these same conditions, one could surmise that other than Tina Barber there are absolutely no ISSR breeders that had a litter prior to 1998 and are still actively breeding.

It also misleads to the fact that many of the breeders listed during the 1997 Club split that did not have litters at that time have gone on to produce Shiloh Shepherd litters both within the ISSR and outside of the ISSR.

One more example:

A poster has made a claim that the SSDCA was re-opened after and due to the fact that the ISSDC had started a registry. Upon further investigation of the posters claims, one could go directly to the posters web pages and learn that is not accurate;

http://www.shilohshepherds.info/formerSSDCAOfficers.htm

"quote"In January 1998, the SSDCA was revived. The following board members were appointed by Tina Barber to serve as directors until the next scheduled election, August 1999

http://www.shilohshepherds.info/clubsplit.htm

"Quote"The New Club Announces their New Registry (Feb '98) Part I (PDF) Part II (PDF) Part III (PDF) One can clearly see that this information disproves the claims previously stated, but because it is "original research" it could be changed, or removed to present their previous statement of fact.

These are just two example of why we have asked that original research, personal web sites, not be used in the body of this article, or to prove POV claims. Web sites are too easily manipulated to serve the POV of a writer and are often done so.

ShenandoahShilohs 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

More BS ... Patty, you were there when Gary announced his *new* registry ... do I have to get others to sign statements to that effect?? That's when I brought the SSDCA, Inc. back into the picture ... not after the Grand Island standoff when I left *his* club .. but after I found out that he was starting a registry!! Granted, he didn't publish it till Feb .. but I have proof that the plan was in the works as of Nov. 97!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be safe to say that no one would know anything about these dogs if it weren't for the numerous pages of articles that Tina has written throughout the years and information she has shared via her web sites? All of which is considered original research and POV. SandraSS 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Sandra, What you say is true but you cannot say what Tina writes is not bias( though understandable) towards her POV. Wiki is trying to be unbias IMHO. Saginaw 04:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Very true Sandra! No one would "know anything" about these dogs otherwise, initially.

However, you will find that many breeders with years of experience in 'working' with these dogs have grown far beyond the 'knowing anything' stage. It would be safe to say that Tina's articles and information serve to peak the interest of those who are looking into the breed. However, far more information and data has been collected by those people with years of experience in actually 'working' with the breed, than is currently shared on her 'original research and POV' laden website(s). Nonetheless, whether it’s Tina's information, or anyone else's information, it's still all 'original research and POV' by Wiki definition. Shiloh Supporter

YOU SAID

However, far more information and data has been collected by those people with years of experience in actually 'working' with the breed,

Excuse me ... I am STILL here, and I still have the data that I have been collecting for over 40 years now!!! If they have "so much" to share ... WHERE IS IT???? Where are the reports that PROVE what they have learned?? Where have their articles been published ... besides their own sites??? PLEASE SHARE THE STATS FOR EACH OF THOSE "EXPERTS" I have a Bio ... where can I find theirs??? MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The edits were moved as the poster has been asked repeatedly not to break up posts by inserting her own comments within others posts. An Admin has moved many of this posters edits as well, and has authorized others to do the same, since the poster repeatedly ignores requests to follow respectful protocal.

ShenandoahShilohs 14:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)