Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia:Notability (canine) - purpose

The primary purpose for establishing a notability and RS guideline for WP:WikiProject Dogs is to:

1. help identify RS vs the many unreliable/questionable sources including but not limited to clickbait & promotional sites, puppymills and scam sites;
2. establish minimum standards and clarity when defining a purebred dog breed vs a dog type vs a non-notable, unverifiable mixed breed;
3. help identify for-profit, questionable registries and/or a clickbait/promotional dog breeder/puppy mill sites vs (for example) a recognized, reputable dog registry and/or kennel club working to improve/develop/preserve a particular dog breed vs a questionable "designer breed" or "rare breed" being included as a standalone article on WP to legitimize & promote them.

Cavalryman’s contribution:

A dog breed, dog type or dog crossbreed is presumed to be notable if:

• It meets the requirements of Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• It is recognised by the FCI, any national kennel club affiliated with the FCI or one of the following kennel clubs not affiliated with the FCI:
  • The American Kennel Club
  • The Canadian Kennel Club
  • The Kennel Club
  • The United Kennel Club

Identifying sources for dog article contents after notability is established:

• Kennel clubs are generally only considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations.
• Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article, but the broad details should be verified in secondary sources.

Importance of proper ID

• BBB scam article
• This diff has links & info
• Smithsonian re:misidentification of dogs
• Nat-Geo includes stats
• Ntl Canine Research Council explains further about misidentifying breeds (more links at site)

In addition to the above links, there is a Book Talk article that may prove useful: "The Most Feared Dogs May Also Be the Most Misunderstood", below the title it reads Many countries ban pit bulls as a dangerous breed but “there’s no science that bears that idea out,” says this author. Publisher=Nat Geo, author=Simon Worrall, date= July 3, 2016. A particular quote by the author warrants consideration:

"But in the 1970s, there was this well-intentioned move by the humane movement to stamp out what was left of illegal dog fighting. In order to do that, they partnered with the media to put dog fighting on the front page of every newspaper in America. In doing so, they encouraged wild speculations about these dogs that were not based in science or historical fact—things like they have 5,000 pounds of jaw pressure. And the more terrified everyone became, the more people who probably should not have had these dogs, wanted them.

It is true that a century ago, there were bulldog x terrier crosses that were bred/developed specifically for pit fighting but that all changed when blood sports were outlawed. Modern dogs were developed for conformity and a much different function, and don't have that century-old heritage. Unfortunately, many are misidentified as pit bull types for no other reason than looks. There are clandestine markets for fighting dogs, crime does

Questionable/unreliable sources

We should also point to WP:RS as it explains judging reliability based on "context", and WP:Notability (web) and provide list of unreliable/questionable websites:

• dogbreedinfo.com
• Doggie Designer
• ARF, "American Research Foundation", initially established by an individual who capitalized on crossbreeds that long-established breed registries do not recognize because they failed necessary breed standard requirements for recognition. There is no verification available without having to do OR. Further, this registry received numerous complaints and is out of business. Such complaints include Rip-off Report, Blog (tells us what consumers are saying); NLDA (Natl. Lacy Dog Assoc.) - see comments wherein NLDA states on July 24, 2017: Hi Lolly, unfortunately we have not had any correspondence with ARF. I would also love to know who has the old records. All of my leads have gone cold. No verifiability.

Service dog scams

• Service Dog Central
• PBS crackdown on fake service dogs
• Senate document - criminalization of fake service animals