Talk:Australian Cattle Dog

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

My book, "A Dog for the Job" (2022), corrects and substantially updates much of the article. Changes are The article as it now stands is based on "A Dog called Blue" (2003). Our present internet resources didn't exist in the 1990s when "A Dog called Blue" was written. Example of change: Please change "In the 19th century ... influential in its development" to "The first domestic dogs arrived in New South Wales in 1788 with the First Fleet and with later convict fleets. A thriving stray-dog population soon grew. Some of the strays, those with stock work potential, found home with George Hall who immigrated, with his family, to Australia in 1802. Thomas Hall, a son of George, developed his strays into working dogs of legendary excellence." NoreenClark (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: you appear to have a conflict of interest. Please read your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton, editors with a conflict of interest are advised to make edit requests such as this rather than editing articles directly, so declining an edit request from an editor with a COI because they have a COI seems odd. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: it's true, but unless I'm mistaken, they are supposed to use Template:Request edit (which highlights their conflict of interest) rather than Template:Edit semi-protected. That's why I asked them to read their talk page where how to propose changes is explained; though I admit, the difference is not obvious and might need explaining in the future. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

NoreenClark, the problem with both of these books is that they appear to be self-published, and per WP:RSSELF, such sources are largely not accepted on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Both are self-published. I was unable to get a commercial publisher interested. My intent is to get correct info on Wiki. The self-published issue didn't stop "someone" (and I can guess who it was) creating the original articles, that were based on my earlier book (now substantially corrected in my later book). Why is it a problem now? I don't even have an eBay listing for the books. NoreenClark (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@NoreenClark: there is no point in discussing this here now that the issue has been taken to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Australian_Cattle_Dog. Feel free to comment there. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you and others for your help and patience. I have just published a few corrections to the Australian Cattle Dog article and, yes, they were published!!!! I will persist and hope that success continues. Again, My thanks. NoreenClark (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Since you're not supposed to edit the article (as explained on your talk page), I reverted your edit and would urge you not to ignore this discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It now seems that, because I researched and published on a topic, I may not contribute to Wiki? I notice that references to my book are annotated "self-published source". However, I have been under the impression that Wiki articles are supposed to be anonymous? This annotation destroys my anonymity - unless, of course, any self-published resource must be similarly annotated? Please advise. I have cited other self-published resources in both the articles under discussion. NoreenClark (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

NoreenClark, you should avoid editing these articles directly, but you can request edits on their talk pages. On self-published sources, all such sources are liable to be tagged as such and should really be replaced with sources published by reputable publishers with a reputation for peer-review and fact checking. Please see WP:SELFPUBLISH on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

On whose talk page? As to self-published sources, how do I identify them when I cite them? NoreenClark (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

On the talk page of the article that you want to be changed, NoreenClark, such as this one for Australian Cattle Dog. The point about self-published sources is generally not to cite them in the first place. Please read WP:SELFPUBLISH. There is an exception specified there, which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"; I don't know if that's the case with your work? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am generally regarded as expert in the field - history and development of Australian Cattle Dog and Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog - because no one else has bothered. I also have better credentials than most, to do this work. Although now retired, I am a fully qualified professional librarian (Associate of the Library Association of Australia) with research science degrees (BA Hons, MSc Hons). Does this help? NoreenClark (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, yes, though it would help if you've published some work in outputs that aren't self-published (to satisfy the requirement in the quote above). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Our Dogs" December 2020 published an invited article: "A History of the ACD".

Penrith 1:100,000 geological map (Clark, NR and Jones, DC)

Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 sheet (Jones. DC and Clark NR) NoreenClark (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Do your own research: Breed temperament

Suffice to say there's an industry behind most dog breeds now, with implicit bias and conflicted interest. The editors of the article are as tenacious (and here's a hint: aggressive) as the subject of the article -- in keeping it free from balance. The article is a singularly glowing assessment of the breed, written by lovers of the breed... for lovers of the breed. Suffice to say, a bit of research elsewhere, can reveal there's a more to the breed's temperament than the article suggests... or allows. A certain tension over this issue has gone on for years and gets scrubbed/retired regularly, including in the archives of this Talk page. Sigh. 842U (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, ACDs can be jerks - they regularly try to bite me at work (I am a veterinarian). Some are nice, some are not. I'm not sure specifically what you want included, but if there is well sourced information available that suggests a counterpoint to temperament that you feel should be included, I'd say include it with the citations. If it gets inappropriately removed repeatedly it can be replaced or an admin alerted to partially lock the article.. I'm not an expert on wiki procedures but we shouldn't be leaving out pertinent information because some people don't like it. Connor Long (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I gave up years ago. As soon as the article reflects balance, it gets scrubbed again to present a one-sided view. 842U (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Dingo ancestry should be included

Recently the breed's purported dingo ancestry was removed (previously it was stated tamed dingoes were used in establishing the breed). Is there some evidence this is not actually the case? AKC's site supports dingo ancestry, as does the prior Dog Named Blue citation that several contributors are in a tizzy over due to potential conflict of interest issues (I think the author of that book tried to edit the article even though she wasn't the one that added the citation - I'll leave that to the hardliners to keep posting conflicting wikipedia doctrine back at each other to the detriment of the actual article, as appears to be the time honored tradition. There is a discussion on the COI page, though I am confused as to what the plan/goal is for that discussion or if/how it will affect this topic).

I digress - point being, for regular folks who aren't particularly involved with ACDs, the dingo ancestry is basically the most interesting/notable thing about them, and should definitely be included in an encyclopedia article about them, unless there is debate about whether or not that is true. Do any fellow editors contest that dingo ancestry is true? Connor Long (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Robert Kaleski insisted that Thomas Hall crossed an imported working dog with dingo. No evidence supplied, but Kaleski, himself, and later ACD breeders remark on viciousness in dingo crosses. NoreenClark (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Article issues

There's several issues with the article that lead me to believe it wouldn't pass a featured article review - the use of self-published sources for many content claims, including life expectancy; and some guidebook/non-breed specific content on grooming.

I've updated the life expectancy to use data from a peer reviewed and independent study published this year, so that is no longer an issue. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@ 204.48.93.206 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK content

Currently under the 'As pets' heading is content that goes against the WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK policy, specifically the grooming section and the training section. In addition the behaviour listed as natural Australian Cattle Dog behaviour is just generic dog behaviour that isn't breed specific.

I'm in favour of changing the two sections so they look like this:

Grooming Known as a "wash and wear" dog, the Australian Cattle Dog is not a year-round shedder but blows its coat once a year (twice in the case of intact females).

Training Like other working breeds, the Australian Cattle Dog is intelligent and responsive; both of these traits can be an advantage in training where a structured, varied program is used, but can lead to unwanted outcomes if training is not consistent, or is repetitive and boring for the dog. The Australian Cattle Dog is biddable, and responds well to training.

References

Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)