Talk:German Shepherd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thoughts on Appearance and Faults Section

I think that the placement of a 'Faults' section under appearance without any further explanation creates a negative point of view (POV). The information is true for a show dog but not necessarily true for a working GSD. I would suggest that a better place for the 'faults' information would be in a separate section about GSD show dogs. I will leave this for a better copy editor because I think that there are people who would object to this change. --Tom 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert section on long haired GSD's.

Did this to restore to an earlier version without the advertising links. It seems to keep the same information but better conforms to WP policy--Tom 14:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The revert is inappropriate in this case. The cites are evidence that long haired GSD's are bred and registered in other countries than the USA, because the present article is geographically limited, and presents only the standard on long haired GSD that pertains to some countries, without noting that this is not at all a universal standard. In other countries, standards do not fault long hairedness, and kennels are established that breed them. The naming of two kennels in a footnote is not advertizing. It's verification and citing of support for the statement that long haired GSDs are actively registered and bred elsewhere, a statment that should be cited and supported.

I've therefore reverted the deletion. If you can find a way to support the statement that long hairedness is actively bred, registered and shown professionally in some countries, without linking to specific kennels, I'd be fine with that. But at present the best verification I can think of for that fact is to list some examples of places doing it. Certainly deleting the fact in order to remove the verification information, is likely to be inappropriate. The edit in question reads:

• Before: "The so-called "long-haired German Shepherd" is considered a "fault" in the German Shepherd Dog breed according to American Kennel Club standards as well as the International (FCI) breed standard."

• After: "... but is not a fault under UK Kennel Club standards^[1] where long haired German Shepherds are also bred and registered.^[2]"

(For the record, might be worth noting, I have no specific COI-type interest in GSD's, I have often edited on articles related to dogs, dog breeds, canine veterinary conditions, and the like though.)

Hope this is agreeable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I kept the content on the long hair GSD but changed the reference to the LSVD of Germany. Used your advice to mention a country that actively breeds, registers and shows Long haired GSDs but without a link to a specific kennel. The Long-haired GSD association of Germany seems to have been in existence since 1984 and actively promotes the fuzzy type of GSD.--Tom 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alsatian

What evidence is there for the claim that the name Alsatian was chosen because the breed came from Alsace-Lorraine? I cannot find any evidence anywhere that it came from that region, but only that this name was chosen because it was associated with "German" without using the word "German". Oxford English Dictionary on "Alsatian" says:

• The name "Alsatian" was adopted in order to avoid the associations of "German". The dog does not belong to Alsace, nor is there a wolf strain in its composition.

Allansteel 11:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

==Locking New or Un-registered Users== I put the lock template on the article just because there has been a steady stream of nuisance edits in the past few days. --Tom 11:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

German Shepherd Dogs...too cute!

 Ok, now I think that these GS's are too cute!!!

       Who agrees? 

  signed, 

72.5.152.45 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

German Shepherd Smarts

There once was a German Shepherd Dog who could buy

things at a store!

Anyone care?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.5.152.45 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

A pair of black labs used to do that in my village for their elderly owner, and a penguin in Japan buys fish for its family. I don't see it as much more complicated than fetching a ball, it's the trust people place in the animals to actually deliver it to their owner is what's surprising not the actual act. 213.249.187.143 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have heard it told that a German Sheppard Dog has the problem-solving intelligence of an average ten year old child. I find this patently insulting to the German Sheppard Dog. :) Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Popularity in the U.S.

If statistics are going to be used they should at least show the relative difference. The German Shepherd Dogs might have risen in the ratings of popular dogs, but that doesn't mean ownership has increased and the figures say it has actually decreased. 45,014 in 2005 to 43,575 in 2006 suggesting they're becoming less popular in the US, just at a slower rate than Yorkshire Terriers. 213.249.187.143 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have heard before about the... feature in American-bred show dogs having a severely sloped back- the person I heard it from also mentioned that many of the dogs can "barely walk." I admittedly have had very little contact with any dogs of this breed (all of the ones I know work for their kibble), and I'd kind of like to see a picture of one of these affected dogs so I can compare it to my mental image and the pictures the article already sports. Or... if one of these pics in the article is already representative, could someone point it out?

Also, kind of an odd question here, but is it common at all for GSDs to have sort of a base-narrow thing going in the front legs, where their toes face out from each other? I just saw a video of a service dog who was standing like that, and it looked rather odd to me. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article that shows some examples of modern American Showlines. It's even more noticeable when the dog is in motion. http://www.leerburg.com/gsd-gate.htm

GSDs are supposed to "single track" which means feet from the left side and feet from the right side walk on a single line, as if on a tight rope, not two lines, like a skier. So in that respect, when the dog is in motion gaiting, yes, he should be base narrow. When he is standing still, his legs should be straight up and down when viewed from the front. The toes should point more or less straight ahead. If they toe-out the dog will tend to interfere with himself when moving. The gait should be effortless, ground covering, and sustainable for long periods of time. It is more common to see them toed out in the hind end than the front end.

Kirsten07734 (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Temperament

Needs a rewrite. The sectrion as it stands is not describing GSD temperament. rather it is defending GSD temperament. See Labrador_Retriever#Temperament_and_activities for an example of a balanced dog-temperament section. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have incorporated a rewrite and I've added a picture of a GSD with a baby in this section.--Dogperson3d 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not a balanced discussion of the breed's temperament, it is a judging and breeding standard. Could we please have less discussion of what they "should" or "must" be, and more of what they are. Properly referenced, of course. The breed does have a tendancy toward character flaws if not bred properly. Pyrope 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"willingness to eat human children" should be changed to willingness to protect human children. tried to edit it but when i clicked to change it, the edit had already been made.. soooo how long does it take for the new edit to be accepted?? 58.169.221.44 11:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits are displayed as soon as the database updates, which is usually just a few seconds. You probably loaded the page right after the edit was made, before someone looking over the recent changes feed caught it. By the time you attempted to edit it, however, it has been fixed. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My german shepherd is sooo sweet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binglebongle2000 (talk • contribs)

Long hair shep image

• File:Nov 04 038.jpg
• 
• 
• 

I've rechecked the old image, and I still don't think it's a good one for the article. Even in full size, the dog is front-on, so only the tufts of fur around the ruff are visible. In a thumbnail the long hair features are not visible at all, and it looks more like a poor focused "generic German Shepherd" picture. The picture I replaced it with is side-view. Even in a thumbnail the features are visible, the body lines (silhouette) are clearly different to the usual sleeker GSD, and because it's a side view, the long hair influence is visible on the neck and haunches which is not the case even at high resolution with the older image.

I don't do much image work, but this one was crying out for a better one and has been for ages, to my eyes. Can you take another look at both, and reconsider the full images, and the thumbnail images of each revision, and my comments on these above. Many thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A close-up more clearly shows the long hair. Even if you can really only see the ruff around the neck, in the image you added I couldn't see the long hair or differentiate it at all. I'll check over the Wikimedia Commons page for a possible alt image. VanTucky 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do. For ease of reference I've added both images (at the same size) to the right of the above discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I added an image to the gallery above that much more clearly shows the dog has long hair, though it is a pup I believe. What do you think? VanTucky 01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that one, when I was checking the GSD category on commons. The thing is, long hairs have tufts, ruffs and heavy duty hair in various places. The neck ruff is the most notable, but around the ears, the legs, and the neck. Many of those are only visible side on. The pup one isn't bad, but its not really showing the full long hair influence. Ah...... if only its creator had included the rest of the body view too, in the same pic!

That said, the third one is a lot more successful than the original one at showing the distinctive hair at thumbnail size, wehich is how most readers will see it.

(PS - thanks for gallery'ing the pics! Makes it a lot easier!) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

it's important to remember that Wikipedia isn't here to only show those dogs who demonstrate perfect adherence (or even really any) to the breed standard. Not only do different nations have different details in their requirement, making such a task somewhat impossible, but it's really a minor violation of NPOV to assert that dogs who look like the standard are the best. There are certainly that subset of owners who think that standards are detrimental to dogs. If the point here to is to clearly show the difference in coat length that distinguishes a long-haired shepherd, then the last image fits the bill. VanTucky 01:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Breed spec isn't the important thing, agreed. Clearly showing the coat difference is. Also agreed. One of the things that's always struck me about long-haired GSD's is that the coat is often so distinctive (as in, it's very markedly different from the ordinary coat). The female (2nd) and pup pic (3rd) conveys that more than the 4th in thumbnail, although in full view the 4th is a good one. But realistically most people will view this image as a thumbnail only, and so for me, a picture that even on thumbnail scale shows the distinctive differences in coat, and that even in thumbnail it's visibly more than just localized to around the neck and head, is important. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a long haired GSD and must have literally hundreds of photos of him on my HD, I have added one to the gallery (although its not great, cuts off feet, ears, etc) I could probably find one of any angle or position, if you had a preference or particular shot that you would like then let me know and I'll find or take one to upload. Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

infobox image

The reasons for not including the "champion gsd" image are numerous. One, Wikipedia is not an advocate for the AKC or any other breed standard, and we do not favor dogs that fit that standard as it would violate a neutral point of view. Two, the image is a conflict of interest, as it is a self-made image of the user's dog. Three, it is fuzzy and poorly composed. Last, and most importantly, the image versions have no image license, which makes them unsuitable for inclusion and will probably mean deletion. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for including the "champion gsd" image are numerous. One, the word "champion" does not denote if it is AKC, CKC, British, Philippine, or any other country champion, only that the gsd pictured has been bred to the standard which includes, structure,temperment, and workability, which is the point of view that indicates quality breeding as opposed to little reguard for those qualities (see gsd standard). Two, I do not see anywhere on Wikipedia where a person can not include an image of any dog that is a positive contribution to the breed.

Three, the image is as good if not better than others posted, and finally it is licensed.(Touchstonegsd 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

The image is not "as good as any other image". It is first of all, poorly composed. It includes a person in the image, which is not what should be in the lead image. It is also fuzzy and too bright. There is no specific prohibition against using this image, but it there must be clear consensus that it is more encyclopedic than the current image. I disagree obviously, and I have asked for a third opinion. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the photo of the champion is not as appropriate for the info box as the alternative, mainly due to the inclusion of the person and the cropping that cuts of the billboard. Feel free to place champ elsewhere in the article, . . . maybe. My 2¢. --Evb-wiki 03:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a fourth opinion; the photo of the champion is not appropriate; it's poorly composed, and of a lower quality than the current image. I know you like your dog, and it's a very nice picture, but it's not as good as the current one. --Haemo 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the photo is a poor alternative to the current picture. Phonemonkey 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Honorary fifth opinion. We probably shouldn't assume this is a WP:COI. The image doesn't seem that bad to me either. However, the fact that there is a person in it gives off the wrong message and is not compliant with our consensus-driven manual of style. So right. But it really doesn't matter what type of German Shepherd it is, as long as the caption tells us. Bulldog123 10:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem that has been encountered here is that someone wants their image of their dog listed as the lead image in wikipedia that incorrect in structure and not a good representative of the breed.

I think that if there were enough GSD breeders involved here in Wikiland that knew how to edit and make comments to things they believed incorrect that the change that I made (or some type of change) would indeed be deemed essential. This image that you have reverted back to shows a dog that is not a good representative of the breed, that is incorrect in structure and this image is something that breeders have been trying to correct for ages.

So here is where I will begin my didactic lesson plan.--Dogperson3d 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the mistake of many new editors to dog breed articles that they assume Wikipedia is here to promote what breeders and governing bodies think is a "good representative" of a breed. Wikpedia does not write articles from the perspective of breed advocates or fanciers, and does not make subjective value judgements when it comes to the characteristics of dogs in images. If the image is well-composed, clear, of neutral and encyclopedic content, then it is the most suitable one for the article. Factors such as what some consider "incorrect structure" do not come into play. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky you concerns are noted but understand that the correct image for this breed is of high importance to many people. There is a breed standard here (not just AKC) that all involved aspire to and strive to breed for. Help me understand why we should support your editing what is perceived and incorrect given your lack of breed knowledge. Why should you be the moderator for this subject? If there was more support would you the self-appointed moderator allow the image to be updated (Corrected)? --Dogperson3d 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to run to VanTucky's defense (as I'm sure he can take care of himself), but I see four other editors above that are concerned with the quality of the photo, not the "quality" of the breed representation. Again, the images included (especially the lead image) should be of good quality, whichever dog it shows. --Evb-wiki 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree... It was a weak image but there will be some very clean images found in the common area soon to choose from! We should all agree on an image that would represent the breed better than the current one. I am new to wikipedia and it has been noted that it is better to discuss changes prior to just making them. There is unquestionably a learning curve here that I need to address personally. I want to do things correctly. :o) --Dogperson3d 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. Please don't feel this issue is time-sensitive or that consensus is set in stone. If another lead image is proposed, I (for one) would consider it with an open mind. --Evb-wiki 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood and I believe that most like minded people would also consider a new image. --Dogperson3d 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Dogsperson. I want to echo what evb has said previously. I'm not in love with the present image, it's not very interesting, but changing it to another image simply because it doesn't fit the "breed standard" is just not okay. If you can find a different image that is of very high quality and represents a dog you feel looks better, than I'd be very open to making a change. But I want to make it clear that I am in no way a "moderator" or authority figure in the Wikipedia community. I'm not even an administrator. I'm just one vocal user. Decisions here are made by consensus, so I was jumping and voicing my opinion about the application of policy in this decision. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha! Like I said, I'm handicapped by my learning curve here and I definitely wanna play by the rules! Thanks for the insightful discussion. (talk • contribs--Dogperson3d 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Giant shepherd & Shiloh Shepherd

In the Article under the Appearance heading there is reference to Giant shepherd & Shiloh Shepherd. I beleive that ====Giant shepherd & Shiloh Shepherd==== should not even be referenced on this page since they are not truly German Shepherds. I would like to see it removed. Comments? --Dogperson3d 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though in some aspects I tend to agree, that is not supported by reliable sources. To maintain a neutral point of view on the subject, a discussion of all sub-types of the breed should be included. Even if some dispute their status. A another good example is of the white shepherd issue. Most advocates of that dog would like it removed from this article because they see the white shepherd as a completely distinct breed from the original shepherd. But because this POV (point of view) is disputed, and such a dog is called a shepherd by reliable sources, we maintain a mention of them here. It would be a violation of this stance of NPOV to remove any mention of the Shiloh Shepherd simply because the mainstream discounts it. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you prefer to not mention King Shepherds at all then? Tomer^talk 03:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it is not a German Shepherd Dog in either name or appearance and should have it's own separate section. This breed is an attempt to create an entirely different breed and while they may have used some German Shepherd blood in the breed it is not a German Shepherd dog. Inadarkroom (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated assertations about working GSDs

In the section regarding temperment, user:Piercetheorganist makes the assertion that working GSD's can not be left around children or other household pets and must be locked away in a kennel at night; then euthanized when they are no longer capable of working.... This is a misconception and he has reverted my edits when I attempted to remove these inaccuracies. [1] is a website tribute to a retired old K9 officer. I add only as background to show the extreme bond between handler and dog. All the dog handlers I have ever known bring their dogs home with them and they are a part of the household. They would not be competent and capable police dogs if they couldn't be good around kids and other pets. I have a pair of 12 year old retired search and rescue dogs that are living out their golden years in my house; they weren't euthanized by the police force. I humbly request some fair and non-POV look at these edits. thanks! --Tom (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking about police work; I was speaking specifically about the U.S. Air Force, and the dogs used to guard missile silos. I thought I had already made that clear, Siriusfarm. Piercetheorganist (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did not mention the United States Air Force but that does not give you leave to make up information. I called the Vohne Liche Kennels in Indiana, which is one of the premier dog training facilities in the U.S. and spoke with Ken Licklider. Licklider retired from the Air Force after 27 years and was a dog trainer and kennel master for the U.S. Air Force before starting his own business. In fact, if you want to be a U.S. Military kennel master, you must pass his training regimen! He said that your assumptions are not founded in truth, are contrary to U.S. Air Force regulation and policy. He said that the kind of dogs you are talking about are found most often in junk yards and warehouses that are run by unscrupulous dog owners. I don't want to be confrontational but I don't believe your assertions are factual. Here is the base docuement for military working dogs - DoD Directive NUMBER 5200.31E, dated March 29, 2006, from Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) SUBJECT: DoD Military Working Dog (MWD) Program. From there you will find all the references to every aspect of the military working dog program. I also checked with U.S. Army Major Sheryl Sofaly, the senior working dog veterinarian at Fort Hood Texas, to see if the US had changed its regulations. She said that the regulation requires that a military k-9 be deployed in partnership with a human handler at all times. --Tom (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever dude, I have it on good authority that you're wrong, but you seem to care about this a whole lot more than I do. Go for it; invent your preferred reality. Piercetheorganist (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And one last question, which agency or police departments acquire "conformation-line" dogs? Why would a police department prefer a conformation-line to a working line GSD? They don't. They employ dogs which have a working rating. --Tom (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I already listed that in the article -- the DoD, the US Marshals, Customs, and the ATF. Piercetheorganist (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From the Military Working Dog (MWD) Program, Dept of the Army Pamphlet 190-12 here are the regulations on euthenasia, and no it is not performed "as a matter of protocol" as was suggested. Approval must be received in writing from the first field grade officer in the chain of command.

1–23. Disposition of disabled dogs When an MWD becomes incapacitated and can no longer perform services beneficial to the Government, euthanasia of the dog is authorized. a. Dogs are considered incapacitated and may undergo euthanasia: (1) To end suffering from diseases, injury, or permanent physical disability. (2) To prevent the spread of a contagious disease. (3) When they are fractious or too vicious for retraining. (4) When they are not fit to work because of medical or physical disabilities associated with old age. (5) When they cease to be effective. b. Dogs do not undergo euthanasia solely because of advanced age if they continue to be physically capable of performing useful duty. c. Before a dog undergoes euthanasia, written approval must be obtained form the first field grade rank (Major or above) commander in the supervisory chain of command of the unit owning the dog. A letter recommending euthanasia identifies the dog by name and tattoo number and specifies the reason for the recommendation. If the reason is medical, the recommendation must be supported by a physical evaluation from a veterinarian. The commander approves or disapproves the euthanasia by endorsement of the letter of recommendation. d. The veterinarian may euthanize a dog without prior written approval of the appropriate commander in an emergency when a delay would cause undue suffering and pain to the dog. In this case, the veterinarian will document the circumstances and necessity for euthanasia by writing a letter to the appropriate commander. e. Whenever a dog undergoes euthanasia, all medical and service records pertaining to the dog are sent to the 341st Military Working Dog Training Squadron where these records are maintained in a central records repository. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siriusfarm (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Siriusfarm, that is *exactly* what I was talking about ("When they are fractious or too vicious for retraining.") -- the types of GSDs used by the military for extremely high-importance guarding operations are, of course, those sorts of vicious dogs who will rip the throat out of anyone other than their handler on sight. Piercetheorganist (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Allsatin herders"

The intro refers to "Allsatin herders" as another name - shouldn't that be "Alsatian herders"? --ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)